Protests in London

Tony Devenish: What lessons have been learned from the recent protest activity in London and how will you ensure that future events, such as the Trump state visit, do not grind central London to a halt?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I actually support the right to peaceful and lawful protest. This is a cornerstone of our democracy. The freedom for ideas and policies to be challenged in public is a vital part of any open and democratic society and something we should all cherish.
I understand many of the concerns the recent protestors had and agree that we need to do much more as a country to tackle climate change, and fast. It is an inescapable truth that we cannot continue to damage our environment in the way we have been. However, some of the recent protests were unlawful and placed an enormous burden on our already overstretched and under‑resourced police. More than 1,000 police officers were deployed across the city each day. So many of our dedicated officers had to work on rest days, while others had to cancel leave over the Easter bank holiday. Overall, over 1,200 activists were arrested for a range of public order offences, with 70 people charged and with more to follow. I have placed on record my thanks on behalf of all Londoners for their hard work and determination to keep our city safe.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM] has estimated that the cost of policing the protest was about £7.5million. That is why I wrote to the Home Secretary to inform him that I will be working with the MPS to consider a special grant claim to compensate for the cost of policing these protests. The Government has consistently failed to fully fund the National, International and Capital City grant. The Home Office’s own expert panel reviewed the figures. It suggested that the MPS should receive £281million a year. The MPS is currently receiving a staggering £95.6million a year lower than even this each year.
As with all large operations, the MPS will learn from recent events and is reviewing the tactics used to deal with these protests. However, the MPS has extensive experience of managing large‑scale public order events, so I have every confidence in its ability to prepare effectively, including for the upcoming visit of the President of the United States [Donald Trump]. We know that London is likely to see a large number of people gathering for the state visit of President Trump. It is always important that the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully and lawfully is preserved, but it is also important that these are balanced against the need to keep Londoners safe. I will be discussing the policing of the visit with the Commissioner, and we will look to how the MPS intends to respond.

Tony Devenish: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Would you accept this is an unprecedented shut‑down of central London? Were you actually on the ground over Easter? I could not, frankly, believe what I saw, not just for a day or so. We all agree about legitimate protests, but literally central London was shut down.

Sadiq Khan: I think the question is: was I there?

Tony Devenish: Were you there? Do you understand the unprecedented nature of what happened?

Sadiq Khan: Sure, and I was there, and I spoke on a number of occasions each day to not just the Commissioner but members of her team who were on the ground as well doing the policing. What is important is if anybody protests in our city, they speak to the police and make sure they get permissions and respect the law. On a number of occasions the protestors did not respect the law, and that is one of the reasons why you have seen the large number of arrests. One of the things the Commissioner is doing is, with her expert team, looking at and reviewing how the police respond to future events like this. It did cause huge disruption to communities and to businesses for too many days.

Tony Devenish: In hindsight now ‑ we are a few weeks after ‑ what are your initial lessons for perhaps more robust action? We do have President Trump coming very shortly. While clearly people should be able to protest, we cannot have the city shut down, in my view, the way it was shut down over Easter, day after day.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am unclear what the Member means by “robust action”.

Tony Devenish: I am asking you what you will do, what you are talking to the MPS about to ensure that we do not have whole parts of London sealed off for days so you cannot get around London. I am relatively young; I can walk around London, but a lot of people literally stayed at home. Their businesses were affected. The elderly could not get around London. It was very frustrating at best.

Sadiq Khan: The police have to operate within the law, but the Commissioner made clear in what she said to the Police and Crime Committee the parameters of the law in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. If somebody acts unlawfully, the police will not hesitate to make arrests. The police are seeing if there are any lessons to learn in relation to the protests that took place over Easter. We have to all, at the same time, respect the fact that people have a right to protest. It is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, but it has to be lawful and it has to be peaceful.

Tony Devenish: In terms of disabled and elderly transport users specifically, what provisions were made so they could get around London during Easter, and what provisions will you make for the Trump protests?

Sadiq Khan: One of the frustrations about the protestors was that they were targeting public transport, which seems to me counterintuitive in relation to what climate change protestors should be doing. It had a real impact on public transport. They were also blocking bridges. One of the concerns we had was not just for those who are disabled Londoners but also the blue‑light services if they needed to get over a bridge in an emergency. That is one of the frustrations that we had and one of the points made by senior officers to the protestors. It is really important that any protestor realises that these are arteries for our city that need emergency vehicles and others to go over. They have to realise the massive inconvenience it caused.
The police’s conundrum is they have to act within the parameters of the law. If somebody has not committed an offence that is an arrestable offence, there are limited powers the police have. Also, the number of officers it takes to remove a protestor ‑ when you are bearing in mind that we have fewer officers now than at any time since 2003 ‑ is a challenge. On some days there were between 1,000 and 1,500 police officers just policing the protests, at the same time as we all know the concerns around violent crime in neighbourhoods. The good news was we did not need to extract officers from the Violent Crime Task Force. The bad news was many officers were doing 12‑hour shifts, cancelling rest days and cancelling leave days.

Tony Devenish: Can I just ask you perhaps to reflect further on how it really has been particularly the most vulnerable who have been trapped in their houses, and go back and push the MPS for next time? It is a real concern for people.

Sadiq Khan: I should just let the Assembly Member know the Commissioner [has written to the Home Secretary and also the Speaker of the House], raising the issue about whether the laws are fit for purpose, bearing in mind they are quite old and outdated ‑ the way people protest has, in inverted commas, ‘evolved’ ‑ and querying whether the legislation has evolved fast enough to give the police the powers they need.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. I will leave it there.

Moped enabled crime

Caroline Pidgeon: Please detail the total number of moped enabled crimes per month from January 2015 to date, with figures provided for each borough.

The Mayor: Please see attached the requested data for the period specified.
It should be noted that moped enabled crime has reduced by over 70 per centduring the most recent 12 months (to April ’19), compared to the same period last year.

Online Hate Crime Hub

Shaun Bailey: Can you provide an update on the work of the Online Hate Crime Hub?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [Cressida Dick CBE QPM] and I have both made clear that we have a zero‑tolerance approach to hate crime, wherever or however it is perpetrated. In March 2017 I launched the very first Online Hate Crime Hub in the UK. This was in response to the growing threat that London’s diverse and minority communities are facing, not just on the streets and on public transport but online.
The pilot for the project was funded through the Government’s Police Innovation Fund and has been extremely valuable in enhancing our understanding of online hate. This includes how and where online hate happens and what impact it can have, but it has also improved our investigative response to these often complex crimes. The hub has built strong partnerships with specialist voluntary sector organisations and social media companies to give us the best opportunity to identify online hate and to get it removed or users blocked where appropriate. Once an online hate crime has been reported, all victims are offered access to specialist victim support through the Hate Crime Victim Advocacy Programme commissioned by my [Mayor’s] Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). So far over 1,600 cases have been dealt with by the hub since it began operating, and the case numbers were almost double last year [2018/19] compared to the year before [2017/18].
The pilot demonstrated the real value of a dedicated resource to tackle online hate crime, and, given the success of the hub model, which is providing centralised expertise to support local officers, the remit has been expanded to cover all hate crime, both on and offline. The team has been increased with two further officers to enable a similar approach to all hate crime reports and in recognition of the fact there is often a connection between on and offline offending. This hub of specialist officers now means there will be an expert oversight of all hate crime that is recorded, whether on or offline. Crucially, borough officers will get the support they need to investigate online hate crime effectively and support victims to pursue justice.

Shaun Bailey: Thank you for your response, Mayor. As you have said in your response, hate crime happens everywhere, and with the forthcoming Al Quds march, which many in the Jewish community consider to be offensive ‑ and unfortunately some individuals use as a chance to indulge in hate crime ‑ have you asked the police to enforce the recently announced ban on the flying of the Hezbollah flag in all of its forms?

Sadiq Khan: I have not had a specific discussion in advance of this year [2019], but the police will. As you will be aware, I have been calling for the last two years for the loophole to be closed. The police when it comes to these sorts of marches have specialist teams. Sometimes, just to explain, Chair, they will not make the arrests there and then. They will capture the person on, say, video, and then subsequently make the arrest. Sometimes they will go in and there will be snatch teams to make arrests. It is a decision taken by officers on the ground with specialist help, but they are well aware of the change in the law.

Shaun Bailey: You are confident that the police will pursue people and make arrests?

Sadiq Khan: I am confident the police will pursue, but I am afraid I am not confident that the march will cause less offence than it has in previous years. I am not confident there will not be Jewish Londoners feeling incredibly distressed and vulnerable as a consequence of the march. I am hoping that there will be an improvement. I am hoping there will be a change. All I have to say is wait and see what happens. The police are well aware of the change in the law.

Shaun Bailey: OK. Thank you. Are you aware about the accusations that have been made by the Campaign Against Antisemitism regarding the National Democratic Party (NDP) march that occurred last weekend?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure I know that one, Chair.

Shaun Bailey: Let me give you an example of some accusations that have been made. The keynote speech given by GlynSecker [Secretary, Jewish Voice for Labour] in which he said Jews were “in the gutter” and reported antisemitism was part of the problem. Are you aware of any of these accusations?

Sadiq Khan: I am not personally aware, Chair, but if the Assembly Member wants me to I can check whether the police know about it.

Shaun Bailey: Fair enough. Bearing that in mind, do you think it is acceptable for public figures such as [The Rt Hon] DianeAbbott [MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington] and RichardBurgon [MP for Leeds East] to stand alongside these people with the National Front (NF) when these statements are being made, and would you join me in asking them to distance themselves from this march?

Sadiq Khan: I just do not know enough. I am not being evasive. I just do not know the facts you are talking about. I am happy to go away and look into it. I just do not know.

Shaun Bailey: When you do look into it, please do. The NF in particular was at this march. Some very harsh things were said about all communities across London. For me particularly, personally, the NF is very offensive. I remember as a young boy having to walk the long way home from school so I did not have to confront the NF, being called the N‑word to my face. For public figures to be at this march and legitimise it I think is very poor form, and I would really like to see you join us in asking them to step away and condemn what went on that day.

Sadiq Khan: Was DianeAbbott [MP] at an NF march?

Shaun Bailey: She was at an NDP march on the stage. It was a keynote speech. That is a real kicker. It was a keynote speech, and they were there. RichardBurgon [MP] was there as well. DianeAbbott [MO] actually made a speech.

Jennette Arnold: The Mayor I think has answered. I would rather the question be a direct question to the Mayor about his actions, rather than the actions of anybody else.

Shaun Bailey: Let me say this, Mayor. When you go away and you find out about this, will you write to me and join me in condemning these actions? Again, just the mere mention of the two letters together, NF, causes a lot of distress for Londoners across London from all kinds of communities: the gay community, the black community, the Jewish community. For me, this was very poor form. I am just asking you to go away and do the work ‑ I understand you might not know ‑ and then write to me and condemn these actions if you can.

Jennette Arnold: Will the Member just clarify that when he uses the initials NF, what organisation is it?

Shaun Bailey: National Front.

Jennette Arnold: The National Front he is talking about?

Shaun Bailey: Yes.

Jennette Arnold: OK. Have you finished now?

Shaun Bailey: Yes. I will give the Mayor an opportunity to write back to me.

Loughborough University's Fatigue Survey of London's Bus Drivers (1)

Caroline Pidgeon: Further to your response to Question 2019/4039 please provide a copy of the agreed terms of reference, budget and milestones for thefatigue survey of London's bus drivers.

The Mayor: The fatigue survey is part of a wider research project into bus driver fatigue carried out by Loughborough University and the Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI). The driver survey element cost £9,900. The survey was open to drivers between October 2018 and 4 Jan 2019. I have attached a copy of the survey method and timeline.

Demands on the Police

Unmesh Desai: How are you supporting police officers who are managing increasing workloads?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The safety of Londoners is my top priority. It is thanks to the skill, dedication and hard work of police officers that London remains one of the safest cities in the world. Policing is not easy, and our officers deserve to be properly supported to carry out their essential work.
Police officers are being asked to do more and more with less and less. Since 2010, as a result of the Government’s cuts, the MPS has had to make savings of £850million, and is having to make a further £263million of savings by 2022, in total more than £8billion. As a direct consequence, the number of police officers on our streets has fallen to the lowest level in 20 years, and we have seen the decimation of the very services that help to address the root causes of crime.
There is also a very human cost to our officers: the cancellation of rest days, and long working days. The Police Federation reported earlier this year that eight out of ten police officers across the country have felt under stress or anxiety over the last 12 months.
The MPS is doing what it can to help officers. It offers a wide range of services to support both their physical and mental health, including counselling and physiotherapy, but it is not right that officers face additional burdens due to its lack of resources. It is not just policing that is being impacted by this Government’s austerity. Services that provide support to the most vulnerable in society, particularly youth and mental health services, have also been affected, and in turn this further increases the strain on policing.
Let us be clear: the solution to these rising demands is to properly fund the MPS, which needs to happen from the Government.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Last month [April 2019] I released a report about the declining morale among MPS officers due to the strain placed on them because of the Government’s austerity policies. I found that between January and September 2018, 328,010 rest days allocated to MPS officers were called off. You already alluded to the demands on our police officers and expressed your support for them, but I have to ask you, what is your message for those officers that are working overtime to keep London safe?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you. Thank you. These officers are valued. We value what you do for our city. Earlier on this week when I went along to commendation ceremony, I thanked the officers for their dedication in relation to keeping our city safe, but there is the other challenge. At some stage these cancelled rest days have to be taken, and we have fewer officers now than any time since 2003. The Government promised £100million in the spring budget. We have now been told we are going to get £17million. That will pay for a bit of overtime. Unless we can rapidly increase the number of officers, my message to the police officers who are currently cancelling rest days is, “I am afraid for the foreseeable future we may need you to do more of this”.

Unmesh Desai: On Tuesday, LynneOwens [QPM], the head of the National Crime Agency, said that the Government needs to find an extra £2.7billion to tackle the growth in serious and organised crime. JohnApter, the Chair of the Police Federation, has said, and I quote:
“This is the reality of years of austerity where we have seen the number of police officers reduced by almost 22,000 as the number of organised criminals has increased.”
Do you have the resources you need to combat organised crime in London?

Sadiq Khan: No. No, we do not. One of the things that you will know is it is inextricably linked with the increase in knife crime. Organised gangs, drug gangs, drugs coming in from overseas. The failure of the Government to invest in the National Crime Agency and the failure of the Government to invest in dealing with organised crime has a direct impact on crime on our streets.

Unmesh Desai: Finally, Mr Mayor, the process for deciding police officer pay is now open for the upcoming year. We have talked about demands being placed on our police officers, rest days being cancelled, overtime and so on. Would you support me in calling for a fair pay rise for police officers funded by national Government, which was a motion passed by the Assembly last year [2018/19]?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. This is, to paraphrase somebody else, a punch in the nose to our police. The police are not allowed to strike or negotiate at a local level. That is why an independent arbiter was set up, the Police Remuneration Review Body. The Government has this independent body. It makes a recommendation; the Government ignores it. It just beggars belief.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Londoners still living with dangerous cladding

Andrew Dismore: At an absolute minimum, there are 132 high rise residential buildings in London where dangerous ACM-style cladding has yet to be fixed. That does not include non-ACM cladding systems that also fail to meet fire safety regulations. Are you satisfied with the speed with which this issue of flammable cladding is being addressed?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I was with some of the community from and around Grenfell Tower last night. The fire at Grenfell Tower was a horrific event which raised immediate concerns about the safety of similar blocks across the country. At the time, the Government promised urgent action, but Ministers have been far too slow at every turn. It is shameful that nearly two years on they cannot say all such blocks are safe.
Following the fire, councils and housing associations moved quickly to begin remediating unsafe blocks they own. Many did so before the Government agreed to cover the costs of doing so. It was nearly a year after the fire before Ministers finally announced funding for social landlords to remove aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding. We have asked the Government to broaden its scope to cover other types of unsafe cladding too, but the situation is worse for privately owned blocks. Just 11 privately owned residential blocks with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated. There remain 164 such residential blocks that still have unsafe ACM cladding and around half of these are in London. It struck me that as of the end of April 2019 remediation had begun on just 16 of them. Many people in privately owned tower blocks across London have been suffering from stress and anxiety at living in unsafe buildings, with individual leaseholders facing the prospect of huge bills.
It is inexcusable that the Government has allowed disputes over who pays to delay vital safety works. It took Ministers until last week, nearly two years after Grenfell, to finally agree to fund remediation work of private blocks with unsafe ACM cladding. It should not have taken this long. I have written to Ministers about this three times, and just last week I joined the National Housing Federation, the London Government Association, council leaders and others in support of Inside Housing’s “End our cladding scandal” campaign, calling on the Government to fund these.
Despite the funding being welcome, we still have many questions, such as how Ministers will ensure leaseholders are protected from high costs of interim fire safety measures and how dangerous non‑ACM cladding not covered by this fund will be remediated.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Whilst the Government will not publish the actual numbers of ACM‑clad buildings in London and indeed the rest of the country, which I think in itself is pretty outrageous, would you agree that progress in removing flammable cladding has been at a snail’s pace? Figures just obtained reveal in the social sector in London 4,600 out of 8,400 nationwide have ACM cladding yet to be removed. In London’s private sector, 10,600 homes out of a national total of 16,400 are in blocks yet to be remediated. Altogether 15,200 London homes are at risk from ACM cladding. The Government’s new fund for private sector freeholders is only open for three months, which generally seems to be an unrealistic timeframe and inadequate in the amount, given the scale of what needs to be done.
The GLA has been administering the social sector remediation fund in London. Will you consider how this expertise can be used to get swifter action in the private sector?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. I think you are being very generous when you say the Government has moved at a snail’s pace on this. We have raised the issue with the Government in relation to non‑social housing, the scheme. Part of the discussions our officials are having with the Government are about how we can help in relation to administering the scheme. I am concerned about the three‑month window. That is why it is really important to have a scheme that works.

Andrew Dismore: You mentioned other forms of cladding. London local authorities and indeed the private sector are also facing the need to remove non‑ACM fire risk cladding, such as zinc composite, copper composite, aluminium honeycomb, high‑pressure laminates, brick slip systems, reconstituted stone and wood. The Government has commissioned a method for testing these cladding systems, but this does not measure the toxicity of the smoke released when the material burns, for example. Even then, the testing process was not due to begin until a couple of weeks ago. Will you raise this issue with the Government and explain it to address why it is only addressing part of the problem and not all of the risks that potentially threaten residents, bearing in mind that it is the smoke that kills people rather than the flames normally?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. We are raising this with the Government. In addition to the snail’s pace in relation to ACM cladding, there is the non‑ACM cladding that is potentially dangerous, but you are right, there is the toxicity from the smoke when it burns. We will continue to lobby the Government. The concern is that it may not make public the results of all this until the end, and we are saying it should during the course of the tests make that available so that action can be taken.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

Article 50

Peter Whittle: In the article published under your name in The Independent on 22 March 2019, you called for Article 50 to be revoked, stating: ‘It was possible for the prime minister to secure a Brexit deal that protected our jobs, economy and the rights ofEUcitizens in the UK while respecting the outcome of the referendum. Britain could have left the institutions of the European Union while remaining in both the customs union and the single market.’ This position is intellectually incoherent, because it champions the interests of big business over the hard-pressed consumer. Added to which, the EU’s customs union is a protectionist mechanism, which shields large businesses from overseas competition. Although many tariffs are low, this is not the case for sectors such as food, clothing, footwear and cars. As a result, prices for consumers are a lot higher than they should be. Companies have little incentive to invest in improving productivity (which in turn limits wage increases), whilstpoorer countries can find themselves effectively frozen out of EU markets. Being in the customs union after we have left the EU would leave us in the same situation as Turkey – having to accept whatever tariffs the EU decide on, whilst having no say in trade negotiations. Even worse, when the EU strikes a future new trade deal with a third country, such as India or Argentina, we would be bound to accept zero tariffs on imports from that country, but with no obligation on them to drop tariffs on UK exports. On what basis have you concluded that staying in the customs union and the single market honours the decision of the British People to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am not sure if others have had the opportunity to read this question, but it must be a record for the longest question ever, certainly since I became Mayor.
The Prime Minister [The Rt Hon Theresa May MP] could have secured a Brexit deal that protected jobs, the economy and the rights of EU citizens in the UK while respecting the outcome of the referendum. The Prime Minister could have done this by proposing that Britain left the institutions of the EU while remaining in both the Customs Union and the Single Market. Continued Customs Union and Single Market membership is something businesses, business leaders, trade unions and many others have called for, and economic impact assessments, City Hall’s own as well as the Government’s, show that maintaining Customs Union and Single Market arrangements will minimise economic harm and avoid the creation of a hard border in Ireland. Our independent economic assessment published last year [2018] showed that leaving the Single Market and Customs Union would result in nearly half a million fewer and nearly £50billion less investment by 2030.
There is a disadvantage to staying in the Customs Union and Single Market if we leave the EU, which is that the likes of Norway or Turkey pay the EU to participate in these arrangements without having a say. That is a less economically damaging outcome than remaining outside the Single Market and Customs Union.
Let me remind Members that there is no consensus even from pro‑Brexit advocates on this, either. Though several Brexiteers indicated preferences for Single Market access and a Norway‑style solution before the referendum, it is clear that politicians have failed to agree a way forward on a Brexit deal.
That is why the best solution out of this mess is to give the British public a final say over Brexit. My view is that instead of running down the clock yet again and then asking for a further extension, the Prime Minister should now put the national interest first and withdraw Article50 so that we can take the prospect of no deal off the table completely. This would allow the necessary breathing space to give the public the final say on Brexit.

Peter Whittle: Thank you, MrMayor. I do apologise for the long question. It was an equally long answer and so thank you.
One thing I would say, MrMayor, is on 22 June 2016 you said very clearly, “Out is out”, and that there will be no going back. Then the following day we had an historic vote to indeed come out. Do you not think, MrMayor, that in the two years since, culminating in you in an extraordinary way calling for Article50 be revoked, your attitude and your pronouncements on this have actually fundamentally damaged the democratic culture in the country, which is what we are facing at the moment? There is a real crisis of democracy at the moment.

Sadiq Khan: No.

Peter Whittle: You do not?

Sadiq Khan: No.

Peter Whittle: You really do not?

Sadiq Khan: No.

Peter Whittle: By calling for the revocation of Article50, which is essentially cancelling Brexit and cancelling the process, you do not think that that causes any problem for democracy at all?

Sadiq Khan: No.

Peter Whittle: You really do not?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot think of anything more democratic than giving the British public a say.

Peter Whittle: No, you are talking about revoking Article50. Let me try this another way, MrMayor. Do you still consider yourself to be a Mayor for all Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely.

Peter Whittle: Well, 41% of those Londoners voted to leave. Do not you think this shows at the very least a huge disrespect that you would call for the revocation of Article50?

Sadiq Khan: The disrespect is with those who campaigned to leave making promises that proved to be false. The premise upon which the campaign was fought has been shown to be not true. Promises were made that we could leave the EU and have the same terms of trade outside the club as inside the club. Not true. Promises were made that we could do a deal with the EU during the course of an afternoon and have a cup of tea. Not true. Promises were made that there would be hundreds of trade deals ready to go when we left the EU. Not true.

Peter Whittle: Sorry, MrMayor. I have so little time. When you want to talk about things being said that are not true, the whole of ‘Project Fear’ economically was untrue. The whole of it was untrue and it is still going on now. I repeat. When you talk about revoking Article50, this has real ramifications for people’s faith in our whole process. You are a public figure.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the AssemblyMember should talk to some of those businesses that have chosen to leave our country over the last two years in relation to Project Fear. He should speak to some of those EU citizens who have left our country because of the uncertainty over the last two years. He should speak to those who are no longer investing in our country, whether it is a Nissan or whether it is Ford that is concerned.

Peter Whittle: MrMayor, I have a few seconds. All I would say to you is that you said, “Out means out. No going back”. You never thought people would vote out and you have never come to terms with it. You have been trying to undermine it ever since, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: There is a Conservative‑Brexit Alliance alliance taking place there. It is a Farage [Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the Brexit Party] and Johnson [The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP] dream team.

Taxi Trade

David Kurten: How will you ensure that taxis will continue to be able to serve wheelchair users in all parts of London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. London’s iconic taxis are an important part of London’s heritage and provide a vital service to people right across the city. Taxis are wheelchair‑accessible and are for Londoners and visitors an important door‑to‑door service at times and in places where the public transport options may be limited. I have made my support for the taxi trade and its place in London’s transport network clear. Both my Transport Strategy and the Comprehensive Taxi and Private Hire Action Plan we published shortly after I was elected show this support.
However, London is growing rapidly and this brings with it challenges for air quality and congestion. My goal is for 80% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling or on public transport by 2041. More travel by these space‑efficient and healthy modes of transport and less travel using private cars will be essential to improving air quality, reducing congestion and making our streets safer. Tackling pollution is a public health priority in London. New measures are required to combat poor air quality and improve the health of Londoners. These measures can include new road schemes that will make it more attractive to walk or cycle.
London boroughs and the City of London are introducing new road schemes for environmental reasons and in some cases for safety‑based reasons too. When considering significant changes to their roads, highway authorities are required to follow due process. This includes carrying out consultations and equality impact assessments where appropriate. I would expect the impact on wheelchair users and passengers with mobility issues to be fully taken into consideration before a scheme is put into place. TfL is providing guidance for boroughs to ensure that a consistent approach to such schemes is taken across London and this will include information on taxis, private hire vehicles and accessibility.

David Kurten: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Fine words but I am sure you understand that all taxi drivers have a legal requirement to pick up a fare. They are not allowed to refuse a fare if a passenger gets into the cab and there are a lot of schemes that are coming in under your administration that are restricting taxi drivers’ access to certain roads, which means that they simply cannot do their job. As it is a legal requirement, do you not think this needs a rethink?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am unclear. The Assembly Member referred to that under my administration I had brought in schemes that were stopping taxis using roads‑‑

David Kurten: Such as TooleyStreet. Also there is TottenhamCourtRoad, restricting access to taxi drivers along there, which is being funded by TfL.

Sadiq Khan: Let us deal with both of those. TooleyStreet is still out to consultation and we have not responded yet so it is a premature assertion to be made by the Assembly Member. TottenhamCourtRoad is a Camden Council‑run scheme.

David Kurten: It is being funded by TfL.

Sadiq Khan: We fund a number of schemes. We believe in autonomy. You either believe in councils having autonomy or you do not. It is a council scheme‑‑

David Kurten: Is it something that you are in favour of?

Sadiq Khan: What I have said in my answer is that the Council and others who have these schemes must make sure they carry out equality impact assessments. That includes the impact on those who are disabled. In the Tottenham Court Road scheme, what the Council has undertaken, as I understand it, is to make sure the roads that go across TottenhamCourt Road are all accessible for the taxis so that those people who are disabled will still have access, as near as they can, from the taxis on the roads that go across TottenhamCourt Road.

David Kurten: I am sure you know that there are 57,000 Taxicard holders in London. They are given out by the boroughs. People who have Taxicards are often wheelchair‑bound or have other disabilities. They may be blind, for example. Taxis are a vital support for these people. They need taxis to get around. For those people, restricting access to certain roads in London is going to make life very much more difficult. You mentioned doing an equality impact assessment but some of the schemes, if they come in, which are going to restrict taxis’ access to roads are going to hurt these people. Do you not need to have a rethink of restricting taxi access to certain roads?

Sadiq Khan: I think we just agreed, Chair, that I am not restricting access for taxis to any roads. We are consulting on TooleyStreet and we will be responding shortly. What we are doing is providing guidance to boroughs to ensure a consistent approach to such schemes across London, including guidance on taxis and accessibility as well.

David Kurten: Will you be bringing in any more schemes like Tooley Street or putting out any more schemes for consultation where taxis are going to have their access restricted, or is this the last one?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure. I cannot foretell what happens in relation to the future in relation to‑‑

David Kurten: You have a Transport Strategy. That deals with what you want to do in the future. You must have some kind of clue as to what you want to do in terms of allowing taxis to either continue to use the roads that they are allowed to use already or possibly restricting them in the future.

Sadiq Khan: I am quite clear I think public transport is very important. For those Londoners who need access to wheelchair‑accessible taxis ‑‑

David Kurten: Can you say that all the roads that taxis are allowed to travel on now will not be restricted in the future and there will be no more plans to restrict taxi access in the future while you are the Mayor? Can you say that?

Sadiq Khan: No, you cannot set in stone a policy for our city going forward, with a growing population, with transport changing, with technological advances and all the rest of it. I think that would be a very unwise thing to do.

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, you must realise that the taxi trade is under an existential threat at the moment. When you came into office there were 23,000 taxi drivers. The numbers now, as I understand, are down to below 20,000 and the number of people taking the Knowledge of London to become taxi drivers has fallen through the floor. One figure I have is that it is now down to about 200 in a year. There needs to be something done to boost the taxi trade to ensure that it continues, to ensure that the numbers of taxi drivers are kept to the same level. Why do you think there has been such a drop in the number of taxi drivers and the drop in the number of people who are doing the Knowledge of London under your administration?

Sadiq Khan: The number of taxi drivers has been going down for some time. The number of people doing the Knowledge has been going down for some time. The previous two Mayors were also not loved by the black taxi trade, but if you have seen the plans that we have brought into play since I became Mayor, the Action Plan, more bus lanes now have accessibility to taxis than before, I think 95% of bus lanes in TfL’s road network are accessible to taxis and 93% of all bus lanes on the general road network are accessible to taxis. We have made sure there are more taxicab ranks since I became Mayor. We have improved awareness of the Knowledge and improved the status‑‑

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, I am going to have to stop you because I am nearly out of time.

Sadiq Khan: There is a big list of things I have done to help taxis‑‑

David Kurten: We have gone over this ground before.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ which you have interrupted.

David Kurten: You have done some things but it is a little disappointing that you could not say that there will be no further restrictions on taxi access. We will have to communicate further about this. Thank you, Chair.

Hammersmith Bridge Action Plan

Tony Devenish: How soon can my constituents expect Hammersmith Bridge to be re-opened?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I understand how disruptive the closure of Hammersmith Bridge will be proving for local residents and businesses. TfL is working very closely with Hammersmith and Fulham Council to confirm plans for restoring the bridge as soon as possible. Engineers from both TfL and the Council have completed a detailed assessment of the bridge’s condition and are now working urgently to confirm options for this complex restoration. This work is close to completion, and TfL expects to have estimated timescales and costs in the summer [of 2019].
TfL is funding the ongoing investigation and design work and is lending the Council every support to expedite this complex stage of work. TfL will work with Hammersmith and Fulham Council to identify appropriate funding once it has a clearer idea of costs. The bridge is 132 years old and was never designed for modern traffic. It is a complex structure, including cast iron and timber, and has been reviewed or closed a number of times in the past. Weight restrictions have been in place since the 1990s. Width restrictions were installed in 2015. The number of buses crossing the bridge was restricted in 2016, and there were short closures in 2017 to allow repairs to the bridge decking surface.
The situation illustrates how important it is that London has the certainty of a long‑term, steady and sustained Government funding arrangement to allow it to cover the costs of its own infrastructure and maintenance. London’s roads are significantly underfunded, in large part due to the decision of the previous Mayor to cut TfL’s operating grant. On top of this, the Government has unbelievably made the decision that from 2021 the £500million raised every year from car owners in London through vehicle excise duty is going to be spent on roads outside the capital. Nevertheless, I realise how frustrating the closure is and have asked TfL to do everything possible to minimise the impact.
TfL has recently announced details of changes it is making to the local bus network to improve links for people affected by the closure. These changes will be introduced on Saturday, 18May[2019] and include rerouting services to provide direct links to the Tube network of Putney Bridge as well as a new direct link between Barnes and Hammersmith. TfL will continue to monitor the situation to determine whether further changes are required.

Tony Devenish: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think at the beginning of your answer you said that we will get an answer for a date of reopening sometime this summer [2019]. Can I push you for a clear date for when you will be announcing the date the bridge can be reopened, please?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot be more specific because TfL is doing the ongoing investigation work. It is also doing the work required in relation to design and the preferred option. They think it will be done this summer [2019]. They are as going as fast as they can. They are working closely with the Council to do this work.

Tony Devenish: Can I ask you to review who was responsible for the bridge being closed initially? You will know from previous questions I have asked you that this has been on the agenda for a long time, and I think there has been a bit of ping‑pong between TfL and the Council. Do you agree with me the very fact the bridge has closed represents a failure of management?

Sadiq Khan: Not at all. It represents the reality of an old bridge being used in modern times and the bridge not being able to cope with the number of vehicles using the bridge. What has happened is the regime was put in place for there to be regular inspections. Those regular inspections discovered a crack. For very good reasons, the Council took the decision to close it. TfL supports that. This bridge takes more than 20,000 vehicles every day, including 1,000 buses. It was never designed for that.

Tony Devenish: Could I urge a sense of urgency? It is not everybody who can walk and cycle. Yesterday I was down at the bridge and residents were saying to me that they have friends in sheltered accommodation on one side of the bridge who feel they are trapped in their homes because of their age, that they cannot cycle, they cannot walk the distances, they cannot even get to the revised bus stops. What do you say to those kinds of residents and how can we really speed up at least the partial reopening of this bridge?

Sadiq Khan: That is a real concern. That is one of the reasons why TfL has announced the rerouting of the buses, and it will continue to monitor this.
As far as the bridge opening, that will be determined by the advice received from the engineers carrying out the work. That work has to be carried out. We have to make sure the bridge is safe. The Assembly Member will be aware there have been weight restrictions put in place for some time. There have been marshals there as well as gating to make sure that not more than one bus goes over the bridge at a time. Double‑decker buses stopped using that bridge some time ago. There was some reinforcement work done in the past.
TfL has spent in the recent past £5million in bus enforcements and ongoing investigations. It is currently spending between £3million and £4million to try to make sure the work can be undertaken so we can find out what needs to be done to reopen the bridge, what are the options, what are the costs and how we do it.

Tony Devenish: Thank you, and just one final point. Could we review the consultation, the communication policy during this process? In the last week it has not been bad but before that, literally 25 to 30 days, neither myself, the constituency Members of Parliament (MPs) or the councils were getting much information from TfL at all. Things have sped up in the last week.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, is that in relation to buses?

Tony Devenish: The buses and what has actually happened. What are you doing? We have had no communication whatsoever despite writing to you and to TfL. In the last week or so it has improved.

Sadiq Khan: The bridge is owned by the Council. TfL is working with the Council. I will make sure that TfL contacts the Assembly Member in relation to buses and rerouting, but also I will ask TfL to speak to the Council about improving comms, if there is an issue about comms. Local residents and businesses need to know what is going on.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you very much.

Tony Devenish: Thank you.

Car scrappage scheme

Caroline Pidgeon: What are your plans for a car scrappage scheme for low income Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I have long made the case for why a national vehicle scrappage fund targeted at cities across the UK is needed to support motorists in ditching polluting vehicles. Air quality is a national public health crisis and requires national action. However, our central Government has so far refused to fund a national scheme. I have had to do what I can to provide some support for Londoners in replacing their vehicles. In February[2019], we launched the van scrappage scheme, providing £23million in targeted funding to support microbusinesses and charities in London to scrap older, polluting vans and minibuses.
I also announced a further £25million in scrappage funding this year to help low‑income Londoners to prepare for the expansion of the ULEZ up to the North and South Circular roads in October 2021. This is an innovative scheme that TfL are developing from scratch. They need to carefully design it to ensure that the limited funding available is targeted at and benefits those who most need it. My team and TfL are working together on proposals for the scheme such as the eligibility criteria, the level and types of payments available and the application process to make this investment stretch as far as it can, given the potential scope. This also means engaging with stakeholders to ensure that we design a scheme that works effectively and is launched later this year, well ahead of the ULEZ expansion.
For years, Government has incentivised and encouraged people to purchase diesel cars. If we are going to tackle the health crisis and social injustice caused by air pollution, it is vital that the Government now helps people switch to clean alternatives and funds a national vehicle scrappage scheme.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you for your answer. It was over three months ago that you announced this £25million car scrappage fund. As you have just said, there are no details yet but clearly a lot of work is going on to get this scheme right. I want you to be bolder. Rather than just enabling people to scrap a diesel car and get financial help to buy a less polluting car, will the car scrappage scheme include, for example, mobility credits where Londoners could get money for public transport, car club membership or use of cycle hire?

Sadiq Khan: Those are exactly the things we are looking at. There are a number of things. The first is trying to get information from the Department of Work and Pensions about in‑work benefits and out‑of‑work benefits, how we define the pool of people who get the money, in inverted commas, ‘poorer Londoners’, and the second is what the path is. We do not want people to leave one polluting vehicle and get another polluting vehicle. If it is possible to help them use public transport, walk and cycle or share, that is something we should encourage. We are looking into what we can do to signpost them away to other alternative forms of moving around London.

Caroline Pidgeon: The car scrappage scheme could be more about modal shift. London streets, as you know, are too crowded. Parking is a challenge. We need fewer cars full stop in the capital. I am wondering, will you agree to specifically look into mobility credits as part of this and also part of your lobbying of Government for a national scheme?

Sadiq Khan: Can I say yes, Chair, and go even further and say I would be very keen for you to meet with our team to discuss any ideas you have? We are open to ideas. The opportunity we have is that unlike the scheme for vans ‑ businesses often need a vehicle to get things around, if you are a plumber, an electrician or whatever ‑ families do not necessarily need a car in the traditional sense, one they own, to get around our city. All ideas are gratefully received.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you. In the announcement around your van scrappage scheme, it allows small businesses to access third party offers from rental and sharing services across London such as Zipcar and others. What I am hoping is that this car scrappage scheme would go further than that.

Sadiq Khan: I think it should and I want it to. That is one of the reasons why, rather than announcing a scheme with the full details early doors, we are consulting, listening, engaging and working out what works best for our city. The good news is you heard the figures from the first month of the ULEZ and people are changing their behaviour. There are fewer vehicles overall coming into central London, hopefully because people are walking, cycling and using public transport.

Caroline Pidgeon: Yes. Your van scrappage scheme for microbusinesses, which is very welcome, has very specific conditions that the businesses must be registered with Companies House or be value‑added tax (VAT) registered. However, some sole traders ‑ so those very small microbusinesses ‑ do not meet these conditions, for example, a local gardener who needs to carry equipment around but is not VAT‑registered and is not registered with Companies House. In actual fact, far from helping some of those smallest businesses, you are excluding them. Will you look at potentially reviewing the criteria to ensure sole traders are included so they can shift to cleaner vehicles?

Sadiq Khan: The Assembly Member will be pleased to know ‑ and I have already announced this so I am not giving away any secrets ‑ we are reviewing it, and we will be announcing shortly details for sole traders in the next few days, hopefully weeks. We realise many sole traders who are working hard were not eligible because they are not limited for a variety of reasons, and they want to do the right thing. We are working on how we can make it easier for them to apply for the London diesel scrappage scheme to help them move away from polluting vans.

Caroline Pidgeon: You are looking at announcing that in the next few days?

Sadiq Khan: In the next few weeks. I would be surprised if it was not announced in the next few weeks. We think we are almost there now. We are just tweaking it and stuff, so I would be surprised if it was not announced sometime this month.

Caroline Pidgeon: I would welcome the contact from your team on that. I have had representations made from sole traders. If I could have that information as soon as possible, I can share that.

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to do so, Chair. I am happy to write to you.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much.

Real solutions to London’s A&E crisis

Onkar Sahota: The latest NHS figures show more patients than ever before waiting more than four hours in London A&Es. But as my report, “Austerity: overstretching our A&E departments” sets out, this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of falling A&E performance. I welcome your work funding social workers in A&Es and reducing falls through the Fire, Safe and Well Programme. But what more can be done to get London’s struggling A&Es back on track?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. All Londoners should have access to the best health and care services in the world. My formal power as Mayor of London in relation to the NHS is very limited but I am championing and challenging the work of the health and care system whilst working with partners to address the wider causes of Londoners’ health.
I share AssemblyMemberSahota’s concerns about increase in waiting times for patients in accident and emergency departments (A&Es). As highlighted in his report, the missed four‑hour target is one of many metrics in the NHS that is not performing as expected.
These missed targets are a sign of the continued pressures facing the entire health and care system. Staff in London’s hospitals and A&Es do an incredible job in difficult circumstances and frontline workers need more support from the Government and sustained investment in the services they provide. I regularly meet with senior leaders in the NHS to discuss this and other issues. Performance is always on our agenda and I help to hold the NHS to account on behalf of all Londoners.
However, the NHS alone cannot solve the problem of pressures on A&Es: health, social care and indeed public health services are inextricably linked and the Government’s austerity policies in one area will undoubtedly affect other areas, too. I will continue to call on the Government to give London the resources it needs to properly invest in the NHS and social care by reversing the cuts to the public health grant.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for that answer. Over the last ten years, we have seen a reduction of 2,200 hospital beds in London. The occupancy rate of beds is much higher than is desirable for safety or care. Can you make sure through your Health Board that there are no more bed closures taking place in London without your six tests being fulfilled?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. One of the reasons why I commissioned King’s [College London] to do this piece of work was the concern that you have been raising publicly for some time now about some of the decisions made by the Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships. My six tests have been shared with the Health Board and I expect them to be met. Otherwise, any changes to do with major health and care transformation or service configuration will not have my support.

Onkar Sahota: Of course, MrMayor, you will, I am sure, want to join me in congratulating all those people who campaigned very hard to save the A&Es at Charing Cross Hospital and Ealing Hospital. We told them that it was something they should not have done and the Secretary of State [The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP] has now reversed that. Would you join me in congratulating the hard work of all the campaigners in west London who saved the beds in Charing Cross and Ealing Hospitals?

Sadiq Khan: Can I, through you, congratulate not just you but all those campaigners, local residents, a significant number of clinicians, the Council, parliamentarians, successors over many periods, but you never gave up and you carried on lobbying and campaigning. I am pleased that this Government has done a U‑turn in its previous awful decision and I hope at least the Government is listening more to residents and clinicians when it comes to these sorts of decisions.

Onkar Sahota: Of course you know that is getting much more difficult now to see a general practitioner (GP) in this country. We had 65 GPs per 100,000 population. Now we have 60 GPs per 100,000. We have high vacancy rates of nurses in London. We know that it is difficult to get to see a health visitor or midwife. Also, the waiting time on the trolleys has doubled in the last year. People waiting more than twelve hours has doubled.
Of course we will meet constituents in our daily lives who will complain about the NHS and will say what their problems are, and it is very important that politicians do not dismiss their concerns as pure hype. These are the real experiences of people in the NHS.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I find it offensive that anybody would characterise the concerns people raise about the NHS as ‘hype’. It is not hype when we have lost over 2,300 beds in London. It is not hype when we have increasing pressures on overstretched staff and fewer left on the front line. It is not hype when we have the number of patients lying on trolleys for more than twelve hours doubling over the last few years. Any politician who thinks this is hype is not fit to hold public office.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for being so clear in your answer.

Aggravated Burglaries

Navin Shah: How is the Metropolitan Police Service responding to aggravated burglaries which are on the rise and an issue of a great concern to London’s residents?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Burglary can have a lasting and profound impact to victims. It not only robs victims of cherished possessions, but also the sense of safety that being in your own home brings. I am deeply concerned about the rise in aggravated burglary. I want to reassure you that the MPS is doing all that it can to catch offenders, support victims and equip Londoners with the right tools to protect their homes. Data shows that the majority of aggravated burglary offences in London occur in the north west of London. To ensure all investigative evidential opportunities are captured and actioned, North West Basic Command Unit (BCU) now has a designated burglary‑focused desk. The MPS also has a Burglary Working Group and works in conjunction with bordering police forces to capture offenders and bring them to justice.
This year [2019/20] I am putting more resources into the police response to burglary. In January [2019] I announced £85million of new funding to tackle violent crime and burglary. This includes a major boost for MetTrace, the MPS’s flagship burglary prevention programme. MetTrace is proven to work in areas of increased activity. The MPS has achieved a 20% reduction in residential burglary. Additional police funding is also delivering support to the victims of burglary, with a focus on pursuing investigations now wherever possible, and, particularly if there are investigative opportunities, there will be a personal visit from the police within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Burglary demands a flexible police response. Offenders are known to target certain communities, and the police should be responsive to this. Through the Police and Crime Plan I have enabled the local police, local authorities and others to tailor their response to burglary, which has delivered positive results. Those boroughs who have selected burglary as a local priority experienced a smaller increase than those who had not.
There are of course things that Londoners can do also to help the police by making themselves less vulnerable to burglary.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am not surprised to hear that there is an increase particularly in north west London when it comes to residential and particularly aggravated burglaries. Certainly my case work also indicates that it is more than anecdotal as to the number of aggravated burglaries that are happening across Harrow and parts of Brent.
The question is that the sanction detection rate for residential burglary fell to 3% in 2018 and 2019. Why do you think, Mr Mayor, police officers are finding it difficult to solve residential burglaries? I think I will be right in saying that also the response that residents get after going through traumatic burglaries is not what it should be.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for raising this really important issue and for raising what is very distressing to many of your constituents, who have been the victims of this aggravated burglary, at this forum. The MPS is working on improvement and now has an improvement plan to address some of the issues you have talked about in your question. This includes identifying pinch‑points during an investigation, maximising forensic opportunities and making sure that frontline officers have proper support from detectives as well.
You are right in relation to how victims are treated. One of the things the Commissioner [Cressida Dick CBE QPM] has announced is that if somebody wants to speak to a police officer face to face, that will happen, particularly if there is an opportunity to help in the investigation. You will know in the past often victims of burglary did not speak to an officer. It was reported, and that was it. The police are addressing that as well because it is really important that we address the issue of the fear of crime. If you have been the victim of burglary, you are worried you may be the victim again as well. Also, there are opportunities that may come up during a conversation that you will not otherwise get by just one‑way reporting.

Navin Shah: Yes, Mr Mayor, we are right. The policy is right in focusing on serious crime and knife crime etc, which we must do, but at the same time it is very important that residential burglaries and aggravated burglaries are also focused on as a priority. We are talking about not only violating safety of homes but violating people’s lives as well who are burgled. Should there not be a strategic approach to see how this can be reduced? This is a big problem and we have to be sure that the focus is not lost when it comes to residential burglaries.

Sadiq Khan: I think you are right to articulate the distress it causes. More than half of the boroughs in London have said burglary is one of their local priorities. Because it is targeted there, there is better progress made in those boroughs than in boroughs where it is not a local priority. What the MPS is trying to do is improve best practice across London, which will happen I think as a consequence of the improvement plan.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Crossrail (3)

Caroline Pidgeon: Please state the total amount of expenditure that Crossrail has awarded to Bechtel since the start of Crossrail.

The Mayor: Since the delay to the opening of Crossrail was announced in August 2018, Crossrail has incurred £7.5m of expenditure with Bechtel in accordance with their 2018/19 Service Delivery Plan. The Service Delivery Plan for 2019/2020 is in the process of being agreed, but the cost associated with people assigned to the provision of the services is currently estimated to be between £35-£38m.

Brexit

Leonie Cooper: What does the latest delay to Article 50 mean for London’s economy and businesses?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The first point to make is that the UK is still in the European Union (EU) and that is good news for London’s economy and business because any economic impact assessments ‑ our own, the Government’s and all others ‑ show that we are better off remaining in the EU. The bad news for our economy and business is that the uncertainty caused by the threat of Brexit remains and, worse still, it seems the Government is still determined to leave the EU with a bad deal that will greatly weaken our economy and hit living standards in our city. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the Government plans to use the remaining time of the Article50 extension wisely. Until just last week it pretended the European Parliament elections were not even happening.
The extension of Article50 until October[2019] has postponed the threat of no deal but it is still a very real and grave threat. That is why the work of the London Resilience Forum will continue to ensure the capital is prepared in the event that the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal in place. For many businesses, making sensible plans to prepare for Brexit remains nigh impossible, but I am helping businesses to access information and supporting face‑to‑face advice through the Brexit Business Resource Hub. I will continue to take all steps necessary to mitigate the negative effects of Brexit but the paralysis caused by this Government cannot continue.
Instead of running down the clock yet again and then asking for a further extension, which we may or may not get, the Prime Minister should put the national interest first and withdraw Article50 so we can take the prospect of no deal off the table completely. This would allow the necessary breathing space to give the public the final say on Brexit with the option to stay in the EU. That is the right way forward now for London and the whole country.

Leonie Cooper: It would be nice to think that the Government could make a decision of any description but they do not seem to be able to agree in Cabinet, or indeed with the Democratic Unionist Party, their partners, on anything at all. Assuming that they are unable to come to any kind of agreement about revoking Article50, what do you think they should spend this time during this extension doing, in the next few months, that is really going to help businesses in London? The economy only seems to be buoyed up by stockpiling, according to economists. I think we are in a desperate situation. What would you like the Government to do to support business?

Sadiq Khan: By the way, the stockpiling that many businesses have done is creating a drag on the economy. It may have led to a decent growth figure for this quarter but there are concerns about what it means for the next quarter. Businesses want certainty but they do not the certainty of a no‑deal crash. One of the things the Government can do is realise that Parliament is in gridlock, realise that the Prime Minister cannot get a deal through her Cabinet, let alone her party, let alone through Parliament, and give the British public a final say. Do we accept the deal negotiated by this Government with the EU or the deal that has the most support in Parliament, with the option of remaining in the EU? I cannot think of anything more democratic than giving the British public a final say. Do you accept the deal done by the Government or do you want to remain in the EU?

Leonie Cooper: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

Government response to climate crisis

Leonie Cooper: With the school climate strikes and the Extinction Rebellion April actions bringing the climate emergency to the top of public consciousness, what do you hope the Government’s response will be?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. It is an inescapable truth that we simply cannot continue to damage the environment the way we have been. We need an urgent step change in the way we think and act in order to tackle climate change. We need those with power to take action now.
I am proud that London has been leading the way on climate action. We were one of the first major world cities to publish a detailed Climate Action Plan that has been independently assessed to be compatible with the aims of the Paris Agreement to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees [Celsius]. I am doing everything in my power to make that plan become a reality with our world‑leading ULEZ, by ensuring new developments are zero‑carbon, and insulating homes and workplaces, but I only have the powers and resources to achieve less than half the emissions reduction required to make London zero‑carbon by 2050. You are right to ask what the Government’s response should be because only they have the powers to deliver the majority of the emissions reduction we need and they are simply failing to do so.
First, the Government needs to adopt the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change and bring the rest of the United Kingdom (UK) in line with London’s zero‑carbon ambitions. Then it needs to lay out proper policies to meet those targets. This includes reversing the cuts they have made to previous climate policies like those that support rooftop solar. The Government also needs to beef up and enforce the weak policies it currently has in place. For example, it needs to properly regulate the energy efficiency of buildings or devolve powers to CityHall to do so. The Treasury needs to set out the cost of the transition to zero carbon and incorporate it into the next comprehensive spending review.
Importantly, people need to be engaged in how we tackle the climate emergency. It is essential the Government properly responds to citizens on this important issue and I want to make sure that Londoners have a part to play in this. I have said I will explore the idea further with Government but as they hold the vast majority of levers to deliver the urgent action that we need on climate, they must take a lead. The Government’s current position is untenable and it must take action now.

Leonie Cooper: Thank you very much for that, Mr Mayor. Ramadan Mubarak to you and the family.
I take on board what you are saying. I think there are a series of very concerning things where I would like to see the Government step up. I would like to ask of you: do you think the prominence of climate change as an issue at the moment is going to create a useful focal point for opposition to [the expansion of] Heathrow [airport] and trying to persuade the Government to change their mind?

Sadiq Khan: I hope so but I think the Government has been quite stubborn about its views on Heathrow. There are huge concerns around the environment. I think the expansion would be an environmental disaster. That is also the view of many experts. We are keen to make sure that we use the levers we have to challenge the Government. We have, with a number of councils and a number of non‑governmental organisations, brought a case challenging the Government. Unfortunately it was unsuccessful in the first instance. We are appealing that to the Court of Appeal.
There are many questions about the expansion’s consequences ‑ air pollution, noise quality, the rail and road service links to the airport ‑ and so we are concerned that the Government, in the form of the Secretary of State for the Environment, is talking the talk but not delivering in relation to some of their policies.

Leonie Cooper: You spoke earlier in your statement about the amazing success, in just barely more than a month, of the launch of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London, although we obviously heard from the Conservatives that they did not want it to happen at this time. We need to go further. There is no national scrappage scheme, there is no national Clean Air Act, and of course we have no access to the Clean Air Fund. We know the Conservatives are starting to run a campaign about cleaning up the air in the Tube. Have you heard that they are lobbying the Government for a Clean Air Act, diesel scrappage and access to the Clean Air Fund?

Sadiq Khan: So far I have seen no tangible evidence of assistance from this side of the Assembly in relation to lobbying the Government on this very important issue. It is important to realise that we are doing what we can without any assistance from the Government. The T‑Charge, the ULEZ and the London diesel scrappage scheme have all been done without the Government’s assistance. The gains we are making have been done without the Government’s assistance. The irony is that the Government is using the gains we are making, in relation to air quality, to justify the Heathrow expansion. It is important we get the help from the Government. We need announcements now from the Government to show bold action.

Leonie Cooper: Extinction Rebellion, who obviously have been very visible on the streets, have also been highlighting how detrimental plastic is. There has been publicity this week, finally, but not very much, about the fact that it is produced from fossil fuels as well as the fact that it is all over the environment and harming marine mammals particularly. What more can you do to build on your very successful water refill scheme, which is helping Londoners reduce their single‑use plastic water bottle use? What else can we do?

Sadiq Khan: On that, can I give you some good news? In the first 12 months of us having the fountains that we have, they have already filled the equivalent of over 155,000 500ml plastic water bottles. That is showing the progress we have made with the 20 fountains we have. We are going to roll out another 100 fountains. We are working with Thames Water trying to speed that up.
You will be aware that this weekend is the Hackney Half Marathon. They are following Harrow’s lead and having a plastic bottle free half marathon. Also, the London Marathon is working on next year’s [2020] marathon being plastic bottle free as well. It shows the difference that the public raising awareness can make to those in positions of power and influence.

Leonie Cooper: That is great to hear, Mr Mayor, after eight wasted years before you. Thank you, Chair.

The Spending Review

Florence Eshalomi: You have said that, “I will be lobbying the Government for a decent settlement in the Spending Review, not just to pay for future investment in infrastructure from the Sutton tram to the Bakerloo Line Extension to Crossrail2 and other major projects we need, but to support us in relation to revenue spend as well for Transport for London.” Can you outline a) what investment projects you will be looking for Government support on; and b) what revenue support you would like?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. TfL has experienced unprecedented cuts to its funding from the Government and London is now one of the only major cities in the world to run a public transport network without direct central support for day‑to‑day running costs.
Despite eight years of austerity, TfL continues to invest in vast improvements that benefit everyone travelling in London. Currently 40% of the Tube network is being modernised and new signalling on the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines. This will add 33% capacity across the four lines. I am also continuing to make radical air quality and environmental improvements across London, including the world’s first ULEZ and investment to create a modern green bus fleet.
Under my leadership, TfL’s focus on efficiency has significantly reduced its financial deficit, but this will not be enough to fund the investment London’s transport network needs. At this time of uncertainty, the Government should be investing across the UK to ensure that cities and regions including London have the infrastructure and the public transport services they need to thrive. Vitally, we need to have certainty around funding for the longer term. This would allow to TfL to plan effectively, invest properly in the maintenance of existing assets and commit to some new long‑term capital projects.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you, MrMayor. It is important we have that commitment to some of those long‑term capital projects, like, for example, one I continue to ask you about: the Bakerloo line extension in Southwark. We know that the population in London continues to grow. Even in Southwark, the population is projected to grow by an estimated 63,000 within the next ten years. We have a Prime Minister saying that if a Brexit deal is not agreed, this three‑year Spending Review may turn into a one‑year review.
What effect would that have in terms of TfL’s operational budget and day‑to‑day plans for those big major capital projects?

Sadiq Khan: It is a huge problem for us. We need certainty in relation to future capital. There is no certainty in relation to devolution of business rates after March2021. We need certainty in relation to a Spending Review. That is delaying us making decisions.
I will give you one example of a difference it has made already: the Piccadilly line, which needs new signalling. The procuring of that has been paused because we have not had the Spending Review and because we have no certainty in relation to what happens with business race post 2021.
You have mentioned other projects from the Bakerloo line extension ‑ there are others ‑ to Crossrail2, the Sutton link extension and others. The paralysis in the Government is causing big problems in infrastructure in London.

Florence Eshalomi: One of the other things is about making that case to Government about these transport projects. It is not just about alleviating transport pressures. It is about regeneration in the area. It is about the jobs. It is about supporting the economy. That is something that the Bakerloo line would bring.
One of the other things was around the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations around funding for that infrastructure to be 1.2% of the total gross domestic product (GDP). Do you know what value that is for London’s share if we were to get that funding? Has the Government accepted your case to make sure that London receives that vital funding?

Sadiq Khan: It depends on how you measure GDP, but what we do know is that the Government’s National Infrastructure Commission ‑ which by the way the Government set up, not us ‑ says that London needs the level of investment we have set out in our Transport Strategy. They are saying that we need and the country needs Crossrail2 and basically the other things in our Transport Strategy: the Bakerloo line extension, south London rail metroisation, the Sutton link. All these things benefit not just London but the country as well. Crossrail1, for example, goes outside of London both east and west. Crossrail2 will go outside London both south and north. If you think about us as a capital city, the country benefits when we have this level of investment. It is not at the expense of other parts of the country getting investment as well.

Florence Eshalomi: Great. Thank you. I will leave it there, MrMayor.

Tackling far-right extremism

Sian Berry: What are you doing to tackle the threat of violent far-right extremism in London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I am proud that London is a beacon of open, diverse and inclusive values and that as a whole we do not just tolerate our differences; we celebrate them. However, we know there are some individuals and groups who remain determined to divide us, to sow the seeds of hatred and to spread perverse and twisted ideologies. This is damaging our society and the cohesion of our communities. Violence, extremism, hate and intolerance have no place in our society regardless of the ideology, whether it is from far‑right extremists who are posing a clear and growing threat to the UK and around the world or violent Islamist groups. The MPS is taking this threat extremely seriously and it is something I regularly discuss with the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM] and the police.
We are also working on a major new programme from City Hall. This is focusing on three core areas: safeguarding the vulnerable from radicalisation, stopping the spread of violent extremist ideologies, and strengthening the marginalized communities from extremism. As part of this work, we have just concluded the most comprehensive citywide listing exercise ever undertaken in this policy area, and the findings and recommendations will be published later this spring or early summer [2019]. After the tragic attacks in Christchurch and Sri Lanka, we have invited London faith leaders to two separate safety and security conferences at City Hall to hear expert advice from specialists on practical measures to keep their worshippers and premises safe.
As well as the work we are doing from City Hall, we must also do more to tackle some of the wider societal issues at play. In London, my overriding mission is to make our city work for all Londoners and to provide access to opportunities to help people reach their full potential.

Sian Berry: Thank you, MrMayor. First of all, I have to say I was really sorry to hear your recent comments about your own security situation and the threats you face. I just wanted to say that that is horrific and I feel very sorry for you and your family on that.
I wanted to ask a few further questions. The recent article that came out in The Times on 29March [2019] from the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] CressidaDick [CBE QPM] and AndrewParker, who is the Director General of MI5, highlighted their concern over what they called the growing threat of violent extremism. That is what prompted my question because they especially mentioned the right‑wing there.
You mentioned that you are bringing out some work soon. That is the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programme and that has been going for a year. Is that correct?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, the research, the surveys, the meeting people, the experts, yes.

Sian Berry: Am I right in thinking that because of the comments that were made by the Commissioner and MI5, that focus is more on right‑wing extremism than was anticipated at the beginning of that process?

Sadiq Khan: No, Chair. We foresaw this issue. We had actually seen an increase in the work Prevent was doing and also Channel. The expert team we have doing the CVE work includes experts in far‑right extremism as well because, if you listen to NeilBasu [Deputy Assistant Commissioner, MPS, and Senior National Co‑ordinator for Counterterrorism Policing in the UK], what he says publicly as well as what he says privately, there has been concern for some time. We have seen that not just with the murder of JoCox [British politician]; we have seen that in relation to arrests made in the recent past. Also, during the summer of 2017, one of those attacks in London was by a far‑right extremist.

Sian Berry: Yes. The article also mentioned several pilot projects on sharing intelligence between health and social services and the police. Are any of those pilots taking place in London?

Sadiq Khan: They are not City Hall led. I am not sure about the Government ones but I can check and get back to you.

Sian Berry: Would you be able to? That would be really useful. In the Police and Crime Committee this week, we saw that people who are found guilty of racially motivated crimes are dealt with and referred to the BCU safeguarding hubs. Last year [2018] the Police and Crime Committee met with Home Office staff running Prevent and it seemed at that time that it was quite early doors for them in terms of putting together effective programmes and interventions to help people change away from extremist right‑wing views and deal with some of the vulnerabilities potentially that might leave them vulnerable to being exploited by right‑wing extremist groups.
Are there going to be more details about programmes like that in your Extremism Strategy as it comes forwards?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, very good. One of the three things they are focusing on is strengthening marginalised communities from extremism because there are vulnerable people in all parts of our society who are susceptible to being radicalised, groomed or whatever, not just the far right but also Islamist groups trying to radicalise and groom as well. It is making sure that we strengthen those marginalised communities, safeguard those individuals who are vulnerable and also the communities as well, and then, thirdly, stop the spread of these extremist ideologies as well.

Sian Berry: Thank you. I look forward to reading the report. Just finally, you mentioned online as well. What progress are you making in removing extremist content from online social media platforms?

Sadiq Khan: That is a really important question. The criteria for assessing the success of the online hate crime hub, for example, should not just be prosecutions brought because what they do very effectively is to take things off that are currently online that are offensive or extremist and also help any victim and give them assistance and help.
Google, YouTube and Facebook all understand the seriousness of this issue and are taking steps. They are designing algorithms. They have algorithms that can see some of this stuff taking place. They are also more responsive now to the police having conversations.
The real challenge though is the non‑responsible corporates, those who have internet service providers (ISPs) outside of our country where we have less locus. One of the things the Home Secretary [The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP] did was to go to Silicon Valley and speak with a number of the global companies there to put pressure on them. We have to make sure we continue to evolve because people are finding new ways to get this stuff online. We have to continue to evolve to find quicker ways to get it offline and also to make sure the ISPs are quicker at removing stuff that is clearly extremist and clearly used as propaganda by the far right or Islamist extremists to radicalise people.

Sian Berry: I am out of time but, yes, hopefully we can talk more about that.

Preparing London for rapid global warming

Caroline Russell: How will you fill the gaps in your climate change adaptation policies and targets?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Urgent action must be taken to reduce the impacts of climate change. I am already taking some of the most radical action of any royal city to adapt our city to our changing climate. The aim is for London and Londoners to be resilient to severe weather and longer‑term climate change impacts of flooding, heat risk and drought. We are tackling this with policies in our Environment Strategy and LondonPlan, including reducing overheating in buildings, managing flood risk on transport and encouraging better use of London’s water.
We are making sure that Londoners know when heatwaves are forecast and what to do to protect themselves by promoting the Met Office of Public Health England’s heatwave alerts and advice. We also ran London’s first Flood Awareness Week last November[2018] to help Londoners understand how to prepare and what to do if their home is flooded. Through our funded programmes like the Greener Cities Fund, I am making sure we have more green spaces in London that are better at holding and slowing down rainwater to reduce surface water flooding. We are working closely with the transport, health and food sectors to develop plans to address the impacts of our changing climate.
My London Plan contains robust policies to ensure new development is well‑adapted to climate change and resilient to severe weather. This includes more measures like green roofs to help absorb and slow rainwater to reduce flooding as well as helping to cool buildings so that they do not overheat by installing shading. My team is also working with the Environment Agency to ensure London remains well‑defended against tidal flooding, including successfully calling on neighbouring authorities to ensure that land is safeguarded for a new Thames barrier which is likely to be needed in the 2070s. TfL is also working to make its network more resilient, including modifying stations to address flood risk. I am also holding water companies to account to increase their resilience and that of London’s water, plan for new water resources and reduce leakage.
However, the majority of levers for tackling climate change lie with the national Government. That is why I am urging Ministers to listen to the growing concerns and either take action or devolve powers and resources to cities like London so we can do what is needed to tackle the crisis.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I recently sent you my report on climate risks for London, which looks at the risks and impacts that Londoners are expected to experience in the next few decades in terms of floods, heatwaves and severe weather events as a result of rapid global warming. It is good to hear the list of things that you are working on.
Now, the report highlighted some big gaps in research. For example, there are 643 schools in London that are at high risk of flooding. However, there is a lack of research on the impact of this risk on teaching days and pupil attainment. There is another example of a big gap in research on heatwave risks to London businesses, how they will cope during heatwaves and droughts and the impact on their employees’ wellbeing and productivity, working in buildings that were not designed for these conditions. Will you do the research, or make sure that the relevant bodies do it, to address these and other gaps that are identified in my report?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, through you, I would like to thank the Assembly Member for her report, for sending that to me, and the recommendations made. My officers have been gathering and publishing data but it is time to take action now. What is more important now is that we move from research into action and that is what we are doing. We are working closely though with the Committee on Climate Change at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency to ensure we access the latest data and research in this field.
My officers and the London Climate Change Partnership have been working closely with health, food, transport and emergency sectors to develop plans for sectors to manage the risks and impacts and identify actions to be taken. The work also involves convening sector partners and relevant experts ‑ you have mentioned some of them, Assembly Member Russell ‑ such as hospital temperature data to assess whether they are overheating, links between transport disruption and higher temperatures, and identifying thresholds which are crucial for planning to prevent disruption. We are phasing our sector‑based approach towards housing, workplaces and schools in future phases.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. Do you have a timetable for this work so that we can follow what you are planning and keep track of how you are doing?

Sadiq Khan: The London Climate Change Partnership is going as fast as they can with my officers. Some of this is contingent on the sectors bringing information forward. A lot of this data, by the way, we have also put out there on the London Datastore, Chair, so it is accessible to others who can help.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. At the Plenary meeting last year [29 November 2018] on your Draft Economic Development Strategy, I asked you to commission an assessment of the economic risks of climate change and to include this in the datasets in your final Strategy. It was not included in the final Strategy. Will you do this now, commission an assessment of the economic risks of climate change?

Sadiq Khan: The danger of spending all our time doing research is that we are not taking action. I said in answer to a previous question that more than half of the steps that are needed to reduce carbon emissions have to come from the Government. We can only do less than half. Unless the Government changes tack, we will not make any progress. That is why we are working closely with the Committee on Climate Change, Defra and the Environment Agency as well as lobbying central Government directly.

Caroline Russell: Of course, but even your MacDonald report that you published last May [2018] said that most small and medium‑sized enterprises do not have or only have limited business continuity plans and would struggle to maintain operations during a severe drought. These are urgent issues and you do need to have that research so that Londoners can prepare themselves.
You mentioned the London Climate Change Partnership. My report also recommended a substantial increase in budget for them. The GLA gives them £62,000 a year, which includes funding for one staff post. Will you carry out an urgent review into the funding that the London Climate Change Partnership needs to scale up their vital work to prepare London for climate breakdown?

Sadiq Khan: It is worth reminding colleagues that since I became Mayor we have begun hosting the Partnership, from 2017, and funding the secretariat. We also support the Partnership in other ways, recognising the benefits they bring. We will carry on giving them all the expertise, information and advice they need. It is not simply budgetary assistance but other assistance we give them as well.

Caroline Russell: Is that a yes or a no?

Sadiq Khan: We will continue to help them as we have been helping them.

Caroline Russell: OK, but you are not necessarily going to give them any more money.

Sadiq Khan: We are not going to directly increase their budget immediately but we are going to carry on helping them and scaling up the work they are doing.

Caroline Russell: OK. Thank you. I am out of time.

Oral Update to the Mayor's Report

Jennette Arnold: Now we come to Item 3. This is where the Assembly receives the Mayor’s report covering the period from 8March to 2May 2019. The Mayor is going to give us a five‑minute oral update ‑ he can take less if he wants to ‑ on matters occurring since the publication of his report. I have already received one request for an update, which has been provided to the Mayor, from Assembly Member Boff. Over to you, Mr Mayor.

Sadiq Khan: Good morning. Chair, I would like to start by paying tribute to our dear friend, SamanthaHeath, who passed away recently. Sam and I were both elected to Wandsworth Council in 1994 and as an Assembly Member and an environmental campaigner Sam helped devise some of the policies we are now implementing at CityHall. I know we will all miss her dearly.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: On 8April [2019] we launched the landmark Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to help reduce toxic air pollution and to protect Londoners’ health, and I am pleased to report that the ULEZ has been a huge success in its first month. On 17February 2017, when I announced plans to bring in the ULEZ, the percentage of vehicles driving in the central London zone that were compliant was 39%. Since 8April this year [2019], when the ULEZ began, 74% of vehicles detected in the central zone are compliant. That means that they have met the ULEZ standards over an average 24‑hour period.
Vitally, we have recorded a large reduction in the number of older, more polluting, non‑compliant vehicles, with over 9,400 fewer of these vehicles detected on average every day in April [2019] compared to March [2019]. This excludes days which were affected by disruption or unusual traffic behaviour, such as bank holidays. This is building on the success of our other measures. As a result, since February 2017 there were 36,100 fewer older, more polluting, non‑compliant vehicles seen in the zone on an average day, a reduction of around 58%.
This is already translating into real‑world improvements in air quality, including a reduction of approximately 20% in nitrogen dioxide roadside concentrations in central London. This shows that I was right to ignore the Conservative objections to my measures to protect lives and I would ask all Assembly Members to join me in now supporting the ULEZ for the benefit of all Londoners.

Sadiq Khan: Since we last met, I have also been working‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Just a moment. We have a standing order query.

Gareth Bacon: The Mayor has, as he has done repeatedly in previous circumstances, misrepresented the Conservative Group’s position on the ULEZ. We are not opposed to the ULEZ. We have said this repeatedly. There are two party papers that were published two years ago where we welcomed the ULEZ. As the Mayor well knows, the reservation we have is about bringing it in early because of the impact it will have on small businesses, but we are not opposed to the ULEZ. We were in favour of it when it was conceived by his predecessor, BorisJohnson, and we remain in favour of it now.

Jennette Arnold: No. No, sorry, Members, please give respect to the Member. He raised a standing order query. Can I just make it clear to Members that we are going to be respectful, for the next 12 months, of each other and this body. If we are not, then we might as well just adjourn and all go off and do whatever else we think we have to do that is as important as representing London and holding the elected Mayor of London to account.
I thank Assembly Member Bacon for bringing that to our attention through proper use of a standing order. I say this to the Mayor. We have heard the Leader of the Assembly [GLA Conservatives Group] clearly say that they are in favour but they have differences. I hope that you will accept those differences and then we can move on.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I accept that the Conservatives opposed me bringing this forward to April2019, as has just been confirmed.

Jennette Arnold: That is right.

Sadiq Khan: All the improvements I have talked about would not have happened, had I listened to their objections. It has also been agreed that they are against me extending this so those who live up to the North and South Circular can also see the benefits. I am pleased he has clarified this, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you.

Gareth Bacon: There was no doubt. We have been very clear.

Jennette Arnold: There are other ways that we can get to this, on the Environment Committee and elsewhere, and maybe a Plenary when we are dealing with papers in front of us as Members with the facts.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I, through you, thank the Conservatives for that point of order? I hope the future ones are as helpful as that one was to me.
Since we last met, I have also been working on a number of other strategies and initiatives to improve the lives of Londoners. This includes releasing figures that show a record‑breaking number of affordable homes were started with CityHall’s support last year [2018/19], continuing to do everything possible to tackle violent crime, not only by cracking down on criminals but on tackling the root causes of violent crime, and continuing to stand up for the best interests of Londoners by putting pressure on the Government to give the British people the final say on Brexit. Thank you. I look forward to answering further questions this morning.
Chair, as you indicated, there has been one request for an oral update, which I will deal with now, with your permission.

Jennette Arnold: Yes.

Sadiq Khan: The oral update is requested from Assembly Member Boff on Greater London Assembly (GLA) housing figures.
14,544 affordable homes were started in London in 2018/19, more than in any year since CityHall took control of housing investment. This includes 3,991 homes at social rent levels, the most since the end of the last Labour Government’s affordable housing programme. It also includes the most council homes started in London since 1985, a tribute to the work of boroughs across London and the impact of my Building Council Homes for Londoners programme. We should not underestimate how much of an achievement this represents because supply in London and around the country has been severely affected by the Government’s shambolic mishandling of Brexit, with the Bank of England now forecasting a fall in housing investment in 2019.
It is crucial to emphasise that to truly build all the affordable homes that Londoners need requires national Government to play its role by devolving far more funding and powers to London. We currently receive only a fraction of the funding needed, despite sending record amounts of stamp duty revenues to the Exchequer every year. The Government makes over £3billion from London’s property market every year in stamp duty but only sends around £0.7 billion back in affordable housing funding.

Design quality (1)

Tom Copley: Many London Boroughs are now producing exemplary new homes, for example the King’s Crescent and Colville Estates in Hackney have recently attracted international acclaim. This should be celebrated and creative ideas shared across London. What can you and the Greater London Authority do to share knowledge, instil best practice and help fund high quality new housing developments across London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I absolutely agree. We should be learning from good practice to develop successful and inclusive places. The draft London Plan is clear that all developments should be well designed. Good design is fundamental to good growth.
The design of the Kings Crescent and Colville Estates in Hackney exemplify the high standards we are now setting in the design policies of the draft Plan, including building well for the local context, using high‑quality materials that last, providing better access to play space and other communal resources, and delivering good quality internal design. Both developers have been celebrated for these reasons including at the London Planning Awards and the New London Architecture Awards, where in 2018 I awarded the Mayor’s Prize to Kings Crescent Estate for its approach to social inclusion.
The draft London Plan is also clear that quality must be maintained throughout the development process. Too often in the past has a design has looked good application stage, with the completed scheme bearing little resemblance to the original plans as costs are cut late in the process. The London Plan sets the guidelines.
We are also doing all we can to support good design more widely across London. Our Good Growth by Design programme uses good design to promote equality and inclusion in the built environment, drawing on existing design expertise including that of our 15 Mayor’s Design Advocates. My team at City Hall is now working with the design advocates to produce design guidance that will help put the policies in the draft London Plan into action. We have also created the London Review Panel through which our design advocates provide design scrutiny to projects that City Hall funds.
It is important that London’s boroughs have the resources they need to deliver quality homes for Londoners. My Homebuilding Capacity Fund is providing £10million to support councils increasing their skills and capacity. The social enterprise Public Practice with support from City Hall has now contributed 3,600 days of resources to good design in the public.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much for that answer, MrMayor. I am sure you will have seen the Kings Crescent Estate featured in the New York Times recently. I am sure the Chair will be delighted to see Hackney going global.

Jennette Arnold: All the way.

Tom Copley: I wanted to follow up with some questions about the Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which has featured in the press for all the wrong reasons of late. Our former colleague here, actually, the Housing Minister [Kit Malthouse MP], has said that we need to be building beautiful homes and that we need to build the conservation areas of the future, but of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and does not necessarily have a bearing on the quality of the homes as places to live.
Do you think that rather than a Government‑appointed Commission to tell us that traditional classical buildings are best to look at, should we not be focused on building homes that are spacious, light, accessible and make a welcoming home for future generations?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. That sort of Whitehall diktat is not going to lead to better quality, better designed homes in parts of London. Hackney is very different from Havering. Romford is very different from Merton. We have to recognise heritage in local communities and give them the confidence, but it is a source of pride to me that New York is emulating Hackney. Where Hackney leads, others follow. That is not a bad thing.

Tom Copley: Absolutely. Yes, sticking some neoclassical colonnades on the front of a building is not necessarily going to make it a nice building to actually live in. I do welcome of course your Homebuilding Capacity Fund because of course after years and years ‑ after a generation, really ‑ of councils not building because they were not able to, they do lack the skills, the technical ability and the development teams to be able to do that.
Would you agree if the Government really wants high‑quality new homes, rather than the Commission telling us what to do, should it not just give councils better funding so that they can produce the modern, innovative and high‑quality new homes that Londoners need?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. You will know this. There are many councillors here. Many councils’ planning departments have been hollowed out over the last few years because councils are making tough choices. The number of councils that now employ architects is very small. That is one of the reasons why we started Public Practice. The idea was to give boroughs access to high‑quality planning and design expertise. That is leading to a sea change in relation to the expertise boroughs currently now have. It is also one of the reasons why we invest in the Homebuilding Capacity Fund. Councils forgot how to build homes.
Actually, that should not be coming from City Hall. We cannot fill the massive gap left behind. The Government has to invest in giving councils the skills they need to make sure they have the best quality, best designed homes and buildings they can possibly have.

Tom Copley: Thank you. Public Practice is a fantastic initiative. It is an extraordinary statistic: in 1979 half of all architects began their careers in the public sector. Now it is less than 1%. I am out of time. Thank you, MrMayor.

Social mobility

Fiona Twycross: The Social Mobility Commission recently found that social mobility has remained "virtually stagnant" since 2014, with concerns that it will get worse. What action are you taking to improve social mobility in London?

Sadiq Khan: There are still far too many Londoners who struggle to access the wealth of opportunities on offer in our city. I remember the barriers that I faced without family ties or a trust fund to rely upon when I was trying to be a lawyer. When the Social Mobility Commission finds that social mobility has ‑ and I quote ‑ “stagnated over the last four years at virtually all stages from birth to work”, this is of great concern to me.
Much of my work at City Hall seeks to address the barriers to social mobility for all Londoners. Head Start Action builds on the work of the award‑winning Head Start London to support young people in disadvantaged areas to gain employability skills. The London Enterprise Advisers Network supports state secondary schools, pupil referral units and further education (FE) colleges in every London borough to get careers advice to the young people who need it. The Workforce Integration Network is helping young black men, one of the groups we know face particular barriers to entering the labour market, to build relationships with employers, offering apprenticeships and jobs paying the London Living Wage. The Good Work Standard will encourage and promote the very best employment standards, including opportunities to progress and develop. I will use the devolved adult education budget to ensure skills provision better meets the needs of all Londoners, particularly those in work but also those on lower incomes.
However, I cannot do it on my own, Chair. We have to acknowledge the effect that nine years of austerity has had on Londoners’ life expectancy and chances with funding for early‑years services, schools, FE colleges and support through the welfare system cut to the bone.

Len Duvall: You have alluded to the Government’s role in this and clearly it has failed in terms of its agenda over the last couple of years, plunging Londoners into even deeper poverty and inequality. What would be your top three asks of the Government that would really make a difference and help support you and other progressive London boroughs in trying to do something about this issue?

Sadiq Khan: The biggest thing they could do is devolve more powers and resources to London. I do not just mean City Hall, by the way; I include boroughs in this. There are some local and sub‑regional things that can be best dealt with at borough level and sub‑regional level.
Clearly, it is good news that we have devolution of FE, but that is only from 19 upwards. What about 16 to 18? That is the real prize in relation to helping young Londoners.
The second big area is, frankly speaking, schools. They have had massive cuts, which has meant they cannot intervene at an earlier stage. We have talked in here about consequences of exclusion. In Scotland, because the schools are maintained, early intervention and assistance helps that young person not reach the point where they are being excluded.
The third thing is in relation to aspiration and ambition. We have to make sure young Londoners aspire and have ambition to achieve their very best. If the helping hand and the assistance they need is taken away, do not be surprised if that ambition and aspiration can get diverted around destructive courses, joining criminal gangs, getting involved in criminality.

Len Duvall: Thank you.

Children’s Future Food Inquiry

Fiona Twycross: I attended the Children’s Future Food Inquiry recently and it was really heart-breaking to hear children’s accounts of being constantly hungry. What impact does food insecurity have on children and young people’s life chances in London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, DrSahota [AM], for asking FionaTwycross’s question.
The Children’s Future Food Inquiry highlighted some of the devastating consequences of food insecurity at a national scale. Over 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK, many of them in households that are unable to afford enough food let alone a balanced and healthy diet. The powerful and moving testimonies to the Inquiry from young food ambassadors from across the country showed that food insecurity affects behaviour, mental and emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. In London the latest figures show that Trussell Trust food banks handed out emergency food parcels to almost 60,000 children alone last year [2018]. It is an unacceptable situation compounded by the impacts of welfare reforms, the freeze to working age benefits and employers failing to pay their staff the London Living Wage. It has a profound impact on our children and young people’s social mobility, as evaluation findings from the Kitchen Social programme have shown, which we have supported to deliver healthy meals and holiday activities to children at risk of hunger during the school holidays.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for that answer. You will know that the Inquiry advocated a Right to Food Charter and I am asking you: would you please back that call for a Food Charter? Would you write to the Government asking them to implement the independent food watchdog so that we can take a lead on this one and make sure the Government is keeping an eye on what is happened with children’s food poverty?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. The AssemblyMember will be pleased to know that my London Food Board consists of members who directly contributed to the Children’s Future Food Inquiry report. I will continue to work with board members to ensure we act upon the relevant recommendations in London.

Onkar Sahota: The other thing, MrMayor, of course, is that the Inquiry has found 15 young food ambassadors. These are young people who voice the concerns of children right across London and the UK. They have inspiring stories to share and inspiring experiences to share. Would you please be prepared to meet them as Mayor of London?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, my team are more than happy to and I have already at the launch of the report and I listened to the testimony of some of these young food ambassadors. I will make sure that my team continues to work not just with the young food ambassadors but the other partners doing really important work in this area.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor. Also, you know that school meals are very important for the education of children. There are children’s hub children who do not have access to Government public funds but they are exempted from free school meals. There is a very strong argument for universal free school meals. Would you please advocate this to the Government that they should make these available right across London?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. For those who do not have recourse to public funds, that means they are not entitled to free school meals. The good news is that my London Food Strategy includes a commitment to work with partners to lobby the Government to provide universal free school meals for all. It is really important.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor.

Support for Survivors of Rape and Sexual Offences

Joanne McCartney: New guidelines from the College of Policing into disclosure requirements from survivors of rape and sexual assault have raised concerns that they will reduce the number of women coming forward to report such crimes. What is the assessment of your Victims’ Commissioner?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. This is an issue that both I am my Victims’ Commissioner ClaireWaxman take incredibly seriously. I have spoken about my concerns around disclosure practices which risk deterring victims and survivors of rape from securing justice and support. The Victims’ Commissioner for London [Clare Waxman] has been the leading national voice bringing this issue to prominence.
Requests for excessive disclosure can impact victims’ confidence to engage with the justice system. This is a view expressed powerfully by survivors and organisations supporting victims. We know that only a small proportion of rapes and sexual assaults are reported and brought to prosecution. This must be changed, and as a society we must do more to create a supportive environment for people coming forward. As part of this, those reporting crimes must be confident that the police and prosecutors will follow disclosure guidance diligently and only access information that is reasonable and proportionate to their inquiries, while of course balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The assessment of London’s Victims’ Commissioner and I is that the new updated disclosure consent form produced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service does not strike the balance correctly. As early as October 2018, the Victims’ Commissioner led successful calls for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to conduct a full investigation into how personal material has been collected, stored, shared and used. This is alongside work listening to affected victims, liaising with victim support groups, raising the matter with Government and increasing public awareness through the media.
I read the conclusions of the ICO’s investigation and am clear that the findings should inform police practice on disclosure. In the meantime, I support the Victims’ Commissioner and the other Police and Crime Commissioners in their call for the withdrawal of these forms as soon as practically possible. The Victims’ Commissioner will continue to scrutinise the disclosure process until we are satisfied that victims’ rights are safeguarded.
Chair, I will of course be happy to arrange for Assembly Member McCartney to meet with ClaireWaxman to speak through this work. Part of my commitment to do everything I can to make London the best city in the world for women and girls is to continue to support and stand up for victims of sexual violence, including through the record investment in services such as rape crisis centres, independent domestic violence advocates and provision for sexual assault referral centres.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you for that answer and thank you for how you have answered this when I have raised this before.
When I last raised it there were concerns that police forces across the country had different requirements. They were requesting different things. The College of Policing work was meant to sort that out. It now has a uniform approach but, as you have recognised, it now has raised other issues. Of course relevant information pertaining to the allegation should be disclosed, but, as I understand it, some forces are now downloading the entire contents of a phone and some are only downloading part. Obviously, these days, people’s lives are contained on their phones. What can you do to make sure the MPS is only downloading that part that is relevant and necessary?

Sadiq Khan: One of the things we are looking forward to is a response from the Information Commissioner. The key thing is that any downloading has to be proportionate. Of course we have to make sure that any trial is fair and we have to respect the rights of a defendant facing a trial. What we do not want to do is deter victims from coming forward because of a concern they have about their private life being made public during a court case, and also things that we all have on our phones that are not relevant to a particular incident we may be dealing with that we will not want the public to see. That is why it is really important for the police forces across the country to have a consistent system. That includes the MPS learning the lessons from the concern raised by victims’ groups, including Police and Crime Commissioners across London. ClaireWaxman needs to speak to the MPS to make sure it understands some of the concerns victims’ groups have across London.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. The sanction detection rate for sexual offences is poor, not only in the MPS but across the rest of the country. We need to make sure that this does not, as you said, put off people coming forward. The concerns I think centre particularly around the fact that information that is not relevant to a particular offence but that might be downloaded and therefore disclosed will go to discredit the complainant. We have moved on from 20 years ago when how a woman behaved and how she acted in public was used as evidence of bad character, if you like. Are you concerned that this is taking us backwards in this respect?

Sadiq Khan: When I was practising law, often in these sorts of cases that were being defended the way to acquit your client was to discredit the victim, to cast aspersions on the victim, to almost victim‑blame. I think there has been huge progress made over the last 20 years in relation to protections a victim has, and a judge will normally step in. There are procedural rules now in the court that protect somebody from oppressive cross‑examination and from certain forms of disclosure happening.
The concern though is ‑ you have hit the nail on the head ‑ that there is underreporting, there is a lack of successful prosecutions, and that is leading to a situation where the concern is that even fewer people may come forward and report rapes and sexual offences if it is the case that they are concerned about their private lives being made public and all that entails from what they have seen in yesteryear, but also what we see from fictional TV programmes as well.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you.

Resolving London’s Teaching Challenges

Jennette Arnold: Research by the National Education Union found that as many as 1 in 5 teachers nationally are considering leaving the profession in just 2 years and your previous research has shown London struggles more with teacher retention than elsewhere. How are your programmes, including Teach London and Healthy Schools, resolving this?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you. City Hall’s Teach London campaign has responded to the needs of London’s schools by boosting support for teacher recruitment and retention in the capital. This has become an acute problem for schools despite the attractions of starting a career in London with all the great opportunities and resources teachers have. Teach London provides web‑based resources to help schools with recruitment, including a London teacher training map, promotion of recruitment events and links to teaching jobs in London’s boroughs. It also includes a brochure for school leaders, which shares our key research findings on the challenges, as well as providing ideas to help them retain our existing great teachers, such as around flexible working and housing. Exclusive opportunities for London teachers are also highlighted such as our London Curriculum programme, which the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) and others cite as an exemplar of how to provide a more enriched curriculum and reduce teacher workload.
Similarly, their pupils will benefit from participating in Healthy Schools London. This encourages schools to support staff in maintaining their health and wellbeing to lead healthy lifestyles and to be positive role models. London’s schools are also signing up to my Healthy Workplace Award, which helps support teachers’ mental health and wellbeing. The first 100 schools have taken up mental health first aid training funded through the Young Londoners Fund.
Our Teach London support includes a digital campaign to attract and encourage new graduates to teach in London, particularly seeking more black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) trainees to improve the diversity in London’s teacher workforce. There is a clear under‑representation of BAME teachers compared to London’s pupil population. Research shows the importance of career development for retaining all and especially BAME teachers. That is why I am pleased to say that over half of the participants in this year’s Getting Ahead London, my programme to support more senior leaders into headship, are from BAME backgrounds and two‑thirds are women.
Schools in London have fed back on the value of Teach London and on how it has helped increase the pressure on the Department for Education (DfE) to improve its national teacher recruitment and support, yet the schools leading on teacher training are still reporting difficulties in filling places this year [2019]. It is vital that the Government continues to step up in this area and give more support at a time when our school face so much pressure on budgets through this Government’s schools funding policies.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Can I just commend the Deputy Mayor, AssemblyMemberMcCartney, for the work that she has led in this area? Things have absolutely improved, certainly over the last two years. I welcome what you had to say about the increased numbers of people of BAME heritage within that cohort now and going forward and working in our schools.
I do not have the time now but it is a topic that I will be returning to over the year because it is essential that we do not just have teachers or retain them but that they also represent the population that they serve. Thank you for the work that you are doing.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, it is not simply recruiting them and retaining them but progression as well.

Jennette Arnold: And progression, absolutely. Thank you so much.

Anti-social behaviour

Steve O'Connell: What are you doing to address anti-social behaviour in London?

Sadiq Khan: Anti-social behaviour (ASB) can have a significant impact on London communities, leaving people feeling vulnerable going about their daily lives, and in some cases it can escalate into serious crime. I would remind the Assembly that ASB is a broad category of crime, ranging from abandoned vehicles, prostitution‑related activity, to the misuse of fireworks. Earlier this year [2019], the Police and Crime Committee under Assembly Member O’Connell’s chairmanship expressed concerns about sharing best practice across London, and it is a concern I share. I note time is short, so I am willing to reduce my answer so you can ask supplementary questions.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you very much. I know time is short. I am very much in agreement with NavinShah [AM] earlier because I am sensing there is a problem within the neighbourhoods. We are seeing an increase in burglary. We are seeing an increase in ASB, Mr Mayor. I think there may well be a causal link with the borough mergers.
Will you direct your Victims’ Commissioner [Claire Waxman] to do more work on this and to talk to the boroughs with an aim to make this a higher priority in the local neighbourhoods and local boroughs?

Sadiq Khan: A good question from Assembly Member O’Connell. A few things. Firstly, the national Victims’ Commissioner [Baroness Newlove] has done a report in this area, and I am sure you have read that, which caused huge concerns. The London Victims’ Commissioner [Claire Waxman] has looked into that and agrees with many of the recommendations and is working with the police to address some of the issues. The good news is that ASB is a mandatory priority for all boroughs, and there is monthly tracking in relation to this in the MPS.
One of the criticisms of the national report is the tools that I had in relation to, for example, Community Trigger and others, are not being properly used, and there is a process to make sure councils take advantage of the tools they have to take action against ASB.

Steve O’Connell: Mr Mayor, the local neighbourhood teams, which are your commitments of two and one, are key in addressing ASB in the neighbourhoods. I know Assembly Member Pidgeon [MBE] has asked questions around the cover of particularly Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). I would ask you to look at that because I believe, and we all know anecdotally, the fact is that across London the coverage of PCSOs ‑ I know it is the subject of one of your questions, Caroline ‑ is not what it should be, and they are key in addressing ASB and increasing confidence in the neighbourhoods. Mr Mayor, would you go back to the MPS and say to them to treat that as a priority to make sure that PCSO coverage, as well as the two Dedicated Ward Officers, is consistent across London?

Sadiq Khan: I will, but I think the Assembly Member is missing out the important fact from his question, which is that there are fewer police officers now in London than any time since 2003. There are fewer than 30,000 people officers. One of the things I made sure when I became Mayor is that we protect the one Dedicated Ward Officer and one PCSO we have in each ward, but we have doubled the amount of Dedicated Ward Officers.
In relation to PCSOs, the latest numbers I have are that 92% of wards have at least one PCSO, but for reasons to do with sickness, maternity/paternity leave, promotion, retirement or resignation, there can be PCSOs missing. As soon as we can get more resources from the Government and the cuts reversed, the sooner we can increase the number of police officers and indeed maybe PCSOs to have more neighbourhood policing rather than less, as we have had in the last eight years.

Steve O’Connell: I think that commitment of two and one is a mayoral commitment, and I think all members, particularly constituency members, will be looking at that very closely to ensure that that commitment is delivered. Thank you very much, Chair.

River Passenger Traffic

Florence Eshalomi: The River Action Plan aims to double the number of people using river services from six million in 2013 to 12million by 2020. Please provide details on the number of river passengers for 2017/18 and 2018/19 and estimates for 2019/20 to 2023/24, which covers your current Transport for London business plan. Please breakdown the figures into River Bus, River Tours & Woolwich Ferry.

The Mayor: The River Action Plan was introduced under a previous Mayor. However, my Transport Strategy specifically includes a focus on River Services, including the establishment of the Thames and London Waterways Forum which is chaired by my Deputy Mayor for Transport.
Transport for London (TfL) works closely with the Port of London Authority (PLA) to support their 2035 Thames Vision proposals to double river passenger numbers by 2035.
However, we must recognise the impact economic factors have on passenger numbers, especially as many river users are visitors to London or using services for leisure purposes as well as transport.
TfL manages eight piers in London and is responsible for the Woolwich Ferry service. Passenger journeys on the Thames have steadily increased in recent years following its investment in the piers that it operates. This includes approximately £12 million of investment in extensions of the Westminster and Bankside piers to increase capacity and address congestion, as well as upgrading card readers to accept Oyster and contactless payments on all River Bus services to make them quicker and easier for customers to use.
TfL also works closely with other organisations responsible for developing river traffic, including the PLA and independent boat operators. TfL will continue to work closely with these and other river stakeholders to help achieve the ambitious Thames Vision targets. TfL will also be publishing the London Passenger Pier Strategy in the summer which will identify further areas to support the Thames Vision targets.
I have provided below a breakdown of river passengers for 2017/18 and 2018/19 and estimated numbers from TfL’s business plan for 2019/20 to 2023/24.
When the Woolwich Ferry passenger numbers for 2018/19 are removed due to its closure to allow the introduction of new vessels, underlying growth across River Bus and River Tours is 5.2 per cent.
2017/18
2018/19
River Bus
4081048
4232928
River Tours (inc. charters)
4107311
4382213
Woolwich Ferry
1828446
1141958
Total
10016805
9757099
2019/20
10.2m
2020/21
10.3m
2021/22
10.4m
2022/23
10.6m
2023/24
10.7m

TFL advertisements

Andrew Boff: How many of Transport for London’s own advertisements have had to be amended in order to comply with the junk food ban?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Almost 40% of children aged ten and eleven in London are overweight or obese. This is among the highest rates in Europe and the issue is even more prevalent in the poorer parts of our city, with child obesity twice as high in the most deprived parts of London, like Barking and Dagenham, compared to the more affluent boroughs like Richmond. This epidemic costs the National Health Service (NHS) billions of pounds every year.
The evidence, including from Cancer Research UK, shows that advertising impacts on consumer choices. That is why our policy to ensure that food and drink products that contribute to child obesity on the Transport for London (TfL) network do not feature products high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) is an important part of our package of measures to reduce childhood obesity. It has been overwhelmingly welcomed by the public, health experts and food campaigners, and it is good to see major retailers continuing to advertise on the TfL network through amending their advertising copy or by choosing to advertise healthier products. TfL has been working with advertisers since the policy was announced and will continue to work with them to answer any questions they may have as the policy develops.
TfL routinely updates their own marketing materials and always seeks to ensure that these materials are compliant with their own advertising policies. When carrying out an audit of their own advertising to check whether they contained any HFSS products, TfL took a cautious view and updated four campaigns, three ad campaigns and nine poster‑based maps, which included images of HFSS products like fizzy drinks and pizza. These adverts had been up on the TfL network from before the ban came into force. TfL took a cautious view and updated these campaigns.
We have already committed to reviewing the policy after one year. This timeframe will mean we can also take into account any changes to the nutrient profiling model following Public Health England’s current review. I am pleased others, including local authorities and the Government, are following our lead. The Government recently announced their own proposals to restrict advertising of HFSS food and drink on television (TV) and online before 9.00pm. These Government proposals also use the Public Health England nutrient profiling model that we are using.

Andrew Boff: Thank you, Mr Mayor. You said to PhillipSchofield [television presenter, host of This Morning] when you were interviewed by him that advertisements had not been changed, had not been taken down. Do you now accept that that was an error on your part?

Sadiq Khan: I think what I said was that strawberries and cream are not banned, and they are not banned.

Andrew Boff: You said, “We have not banned strawberries and cream from being advertised”. He then said, “But you took the ad down though”. You said, “No, no, we didn’t”. Do you accept that that is wrong and that you actually did take the ad down?

Sadiq Khan: No, I am quite clear that strawberries and cream are not banned from being advertised on the Tube. It is possible to apply for exceptions and I was quite clear in relation to my answers.

Andrew Boff: Yes, you have explained that very fulsomely. Did the ad get taken down?

Sadiq Khan: TfL took the decision to take down some adverts. I have mentioned that they took down four campaigns, three ad campaigns and nine poster maps that included images of fizzy drinks and pizza.

Andrew Boff: And strawberries and cream.

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure if that is one of the adverts but they took down the numbers I have mentioned.

Andrew Boff: But you said to PhillipSchofield that the advertisement that included strawberries and cream was not taken down.

Sadiq Khan: Advertising strawberries and cream‑‑

Andrew Boff: Do you accept that that was a mistake on your part?

Sadiq Khan: No. There is no ban on advertising strawberries and cream on the TfL network.

Andrew Boff: That is not what I asked, Mr Mayor. I asked very simply that you were challenged as to whether or not that ad had been taken down. You said, “No, no, we didn’t”. Were you wrong?

Sadiq Khan: No. I do not resile from saying that strawberries and cream are not banned from being advertised on the TfL network.

Andrew Boff: I am not asking you whether or not they are banned, I am asking you whether or not that ad was taken down. Was that ad taken down?

Sadiq Khan: I have mentioned that a number of adverts were taken down by TfL, not because they breached the ban but because they wanted to set a good example.

Andrew Boff: Absolutely, but when challenged by PhillipSchofield you said the ad had not been taken down. Who was wrong?

Sadiq Khan: What I was being asked was, “Are strawberries and cream banned from being advertised on the Tube?” They are not banned from being advertised on the Tube.

Andrew Boff: No, what you were asked was whether or not the ad was taken down. I am going to keep going on this.

Sadiq Khan: Please do.

Andrew Boff: I have five minutes allocated for my Group‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I thought you had 30 seconds less, but carry on.

Andrew Boff: ‑‑ and I can keep asking the same question.

Sadiq Khan: Please do, please do.

Andrew Boff: Was the ad taken down?

Sadiq Khan: I continue my position, which is that advertising strawberries and cream is allowed on the TfL network. It is not‑‑

Andrew Boff: Was the ad taken down, Mr Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ targeting children. I have mentioned that a number of adverts were taken down by TfL and I have listed the ones that I know, which are the ones that include fizzy drinks and pizza.

Andrew Boff: That does not include the strawberries and cream ad. Was that ad taken down, Mr Mayor? You do not know whether or not that ad was taken down?

Sadiq Khan: The briefing I have is that during a recent audit TfL took a cautious view and amended four campaigns that showed potential HFSS products, including fizzy drinks and pizza. What I do know is that advertising strawberries and cream is not disallowed and advertisers can apply for exceptions.

Andrew Boff: You were asked whether or not that ad was taken down. You are now telling me you did not know whether or not that ad was taken down. Is that correct? You are not sure?

Sadiq Khan: No, I am quite sure strawberries and cream are not banned from the TfL network.

Andrew Boff: I did not ask whether or not they were banned, Mr Mayor. I asked whether or not the ad was taken down. Are you not sure whether or not that ad was taken down?

Sadiq Khan: It may have been one of the adverts taken down, the adverts I read out from my briefing, but I am quite clear‑‑

Jennette Arnold: OK.

Andrew Boff: OK, so‑‑

Jennette Arnold: OK.

Andrew Boff: We are almost there.

Jennette Arnold: Assembly Member Boff, I am going to intervene here. I am just going to make a statement so that people who are watching know what is going on. Groups are allocated time in the two and a half hours and it is up to them how they use their time. Assembly Member Boff has just said he is going to continue with one line of questioning and one question‑‑

Andrew Boff: Until we get an answer, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: ‑‑ for the next five minutes. As soon as that time is up then we will move on. Is the Mayor aware that he has every right, under our standing orders, to do this?

Sadiq Khan: Of course.

Jennette Arnold: OK. Let us get into this bit of charade.

Andrew Boff: Thank you, Chair. Of course, Chair, this is not about our right to just ask questions; it is our aim to get answers.

Jennette Arnold: You have five minutes with the Mayor, or not.

Andrew Boff: You are saying now, is it right, that you are not sure whether or not that ad was taken down? Is that the case?

Sadiq Khan: What I am saying that I am sure about is I was asked, “Are strawberries and cream banned from the TfL network?” and‑‑

Andrew Boff: No, I am not addressing that. We have already gone over that, Mr Mayor. Phillip Schofield said‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Have you accepted that? I am unclear, Chair, whether that has been accepted.

Andrew Boff: Phillip Schofield said to you, “You took the ad down though”, and you said, “No, no, we didn’t”. I am just trying to find out whether or not you have made a mistake.

Sadiq Khan: The previous question was that you asserted to me‑‑

Andrew Boff: That was a different question.

Sadiq Khan: OK, but do you accept‑‑

Andrew Boff: We have moved on from that. This is this question.

Sadiq Khan: I am unclear. Do you accept that I was right when I said, “Strawberries and cream are not banned”?

Jennette Arnold: No, no, no, it does not work that way.

Andrew Boff: You do not ask me questions, Mr Mayor.

Jennette Arnold: You do not ask us questions.

Andrew Boff: If you want to stand for the London Assembly, the nominations are up at the moment. Perhaps you might want to grab one of their seats.

Jennette Arnold: Assembly Member Boff, stay with your question.

Andrew Boff: I want to know whether or not you were clear in your mind when you answered Phillip Schofield when you said that ad was not taken down.

Sadiq Khan: I am clear in my mind when I gave the answer to PhilipSchofield that strawberries and cream were not banned.

Andrew Boff: That is not the question I asked you, Mr Mayor. I asked you whether or not that ad was taken down. Was that ad taken down?

Sadiq Khan: I have already explained in my answer five minutes ago that during the recent audit TfL took a cautious view and amended four campaigns that showed potential HFSS products, including fizzy drinks and pizza.

Andrew Boff: Now that strawberries and cream are obviously banned on the Underground, let us move on. I just do not understand how you cannot understand the question. All I want to know is: were you certain in your mind at the time that the ad had not been taken down?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, there is an assertion in the question that is incorrect. Strawberries and cream are not banned from being advertised on the Tube. That was an assertion made in the question.

Andrew Boff: Let us try again. Try again?

Jennette Arnold: It is your time.

Andrew Boff: We will give it one more go. One more go. Was the ad that featured strawberries and cream taken down?

Sadiq Khan: I have not got a list of all the adverts taken down, Chair, but during a recent audit TfL took a cautious view and amended four campaigns that showed potential HFSS products, including fizzy drinks and pizza.

Andrew Boff: Are you saying to me that you cannot tell me whether or not that advert was taken down?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I have not got a list of all the adverts amended by TfL.

Andrew Boff: Did that include the strawberries and cream?

Sadiq Khan: I have not got a list of all the adverts‑‑

Andrew Boff: So you do not know.

Sadiq Khan: I have read you the briefing that I have.

Andrew Boff: You seemed to know when you answered PhillipSchofield. Thank you, Chair.

Leonie Cooper: That was the best advertisement for strawberries and cream.

Andrew Boff: It sure is. I love strawberries and cream and I think they should be advertised on the Underground.

Sadiq Khan: And the worst advertisement for Assembly Member Boff.